MAGISTERIUM
Magisterium Notes:
Need to be subject to pope even to non-faith and morals teachings: “jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world” (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus ch 3)
1983 Can. 6 says that when the current 1983 canon law takes force, the one in 1917 is abrogated.
Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, a Relator (the man who presents the relatio, which is an official interpretation of a text presented to the council bishops so they know what they’re voting for) for Pastor Aeternus (meaning the person who contributed to writing the Pastor Aeternus) says, “the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff” (Gasser & O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility)
However, this doesn’t mean a Catholic can reject all fallible doctrines. As Can. 752 says, “Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.” A “definitive act” (quoted from the above law) is one of the qualifications for the Supreme Pontiff’s teaching to be infallible (Can. 749 §1). So, “even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act” can be understood in other words as, “even if they do not intend to proclaim it infallibly.” Put shortly, a Catholic must give a “religious submission of the intellect and will” even to non-infallible doctrine.
Further, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Profession of Faith says, “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”
Further, Lumen Gentium 25 of Vatican II says, “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
Further, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Donum Veritatis says, “When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.
Now, “religious submission of the intellect and will” takes differing degrees. As “Doctrinal Commentary on concluding formula of 'Professio fidei'” points out, “...one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” So, a Catholic does not need to give full “religious submission of the intellect and will” if they don’t need to—partial submission is okay, in summary.
Are there exceptional times when we can question or even disagree with a non-infallible Magisterial teaching, though? Yes!
According to Donum Veritatis, “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.” In other words, a theologian may raise questions about some doctrine.
That said, notice Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis says:
“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
Cardinal Ratzinger identifies 5 classes of magisterial teaching. Category 1 and 2 cannot be denied by a Catholic. Now, Dr. Edward Feser (a Catholic philosopher) used Cardinal Ratzinger and also another cardinal to conclude that category 3 magisterial statements may be questioned, category 4 likewise, and category 5 is where a Catholic can still be in good standing with the Church even if they disagree with the magisterial teaching . Cardinal Ratzinger supports this point by saying, “For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds [EMPHASIZE “be at odds”] with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion” (“Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles”). And according to Feser, capital punishment is a categorical 5 disagreement between the Catholic and the pope.
Here’s my final argument for my case that a Catholic can disagree with some doctrine:
1. The 5 classes mentioned above are teachings proposed by the Magisterium.
2. A Catholic can disagree with (if not a category 3 or 4) then a category 5 magisterial teaching.
3. According to Jimmy Akin, doctrines are “...those teachings which are proposed by the Magisterium” (Dogma, Doctrine, and Theology: What Are They?”).
4. Therefore, a Catholic can disagree with (if not a category 3 or 4) then a category 5 doctrine.
I do not know what “Although not an assent of faith” (quoted above) means exactly but it seems to suggest that when we are obliged to give an assent of faith, it means that if we deny what we are obliged to give assent of faith to, we’d stop being Catholic.
According to CCC 2089, “Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.” But according to Cardinal Avery Dulles, “In current Catholic usage, the term “dogma” means a divinely revealed truth” (The Surviving of Dogma 153). And in your article, “dogma doctrine and theology what are they,” you stated, “all dogmas are infallibly defined.” My interpretation of all three of these sources taken together is that incredulity is the refusal to assent to revealed truth, which is dogma, which is infallible. But how could this be if
OBJ (james vs robert debate): pope zosemus declared ex cathedra that sibelius and pelagius were orthodox. But they were not orthodox, therefore, papal infallibility is wrong.
Ans: (1) Zosemus didn’t declare something ex cathedra, and (2) around 417 Pelagius sent a letter to pope innocent i but he died before the letter reached him. So pope zosimus, the successor, read the letter. Zosimus then sent a letter to the african bishops, including augustine, saying that Zosimus was not a heretic after examining the letter of Pelagius. Problem is, Zosimus didn’t know Pelagius was lying about his orthodoxy to the faith.
Obj: a Catholic during that time would need to submit to the false teaching of Zosemus
Ans: no, the letter of Zosemus was only sent to the African bishops, not the rest of the Church, it is not an infallible teaching.
—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death penalty 2018 change:
-New death penalty revision CCC 2267
-Letter to Bishops about revision CCC 2267: “new formulation…expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium”
-summary of 2 diff views:
“today capital punishment is unacceptable” [Francis] even “If, in fact, the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good” [Francis; quoted from Letter]
Ed Feser: (1) Capital punishment is infallible teaching in the past so unchangeable and “if Pope Francis had clearly and unambiguously taught that capital punishment is intrinsically evil…he would simply be guilty of a doctrinal error” [CWR Feser] (2) even if it is noninfallible, “it would be contrary to the truth, if…one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments” [Donum Veritatis by CDF]; so here’s a reductio: If the earlier Church Magisterium was wrong to say that capital punishment is ok then the Church Magisterium was habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-definition of heresy (CIC 751): (1) involves “divine and catholic faith” = involves dogma, (2) “denial or obstinate doubt”, (3) post-baptism,
-divine and catholic faith = dogma faith: “These doctrines…defined…as divinely revealed…when he speaks “ex cathedra”...or…by…Magisterium (Doctrinal Commentary, 5). “Divinely revealed” (“divine revelation” Ludwig Ott 5) and “Magisterium (“infallible doctrinal definition by the Church” Ott 5). These two key terms fulfill the two conditions of Avery Dulles below so they are dogma.
-Definition of doctrine jimmy akin: “Any authentic (authoritative) teaching of the Church, including but not limited to dogmas” (Section 85 teaching w authority)
-Definition of dogma cardinal avery dulles: “In current Catholic usage, the term “dogma” means (1) a divinely revealed truth, (2) proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church, and hence (3) binding on all the faithful without exception, now and forever” (The Survival of Dogma, 153)
-Authentic = authoritative (The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop, note 1)
-deposit of faith: (1) “word of God, written or handed [CCC 97: Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture],” which is (2) “divinely revealed…by the solemn Magisterium…or by its ordinary and universal magisterium” (CIC 750 S1)
-primary object of infallibility:
Obj: Nicaea II (787) says To those who apply to the sacred images, the sayings in divine scripture against idols, anathema. To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema. To those who call the sacred images idols, anathema. To those who say that Christians had recourse to the images as Gods, anathema. To those who knowingly communicate with those who insult and dishonor the sacred images, anathema
Ans: let’s say we admit the definition of anathema given by partriarch of constantinople, tarasios (784), that it’s separation from God and kingdom of heaven, it doesn’t mean they are damned. Just as Paul delivered “this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The one delivered to satan is separated from God and kingdom of heaven through his Church, hence Paul says, “Let him who has done this be removed from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:2). “among you” is kingdom of heaven, which is probably the church on earth bc luke 17:21 says, “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Obj: crazy doctrinal development:
Ans: well no bc even protestants have images, such as the cross on their church, which is a development of doctrine. For example [the following is from Suan Sonna icons and development doctrine]
(1)no images: tertullian (150-220 AD), clement of alexandria (150-211/215), origen (185-253), lactantius (250-325). For example, clement says, “Now the images and temples constructed by mechanics are made of inert matter; so that they too are inert, and material, and profane” (stromata book 7 chp 5) “You then will show yourselves inferior to apes by cleaving to stone, and wood, and gold, and ivory images, and to pictures” (exhortation to the heathen chp 4)
(2)no veneration (are images ok?): arnobius (255-330), eusebius of caesarea (339)
(3) images but not in churches: canon 36 of elvira (300-310), epiphanius (310/320-403 AD)
Protestant position: (4) images in churches but not venerated: augustine of hippo (354-430), pope gregory great (540-604)
Catholic postion (5) images in churches and venerated: st john of damascus (675/676-749), nicaea ii (787)
OR
From william albretch Wrong! Images of signets were early and was even allowed by (1) clement of alexandria (150-211/215) in cases of necessity for safety. He says, “if it is necessary for us, while engaged in public business, or discharging other avocations in the country, and often away from our wives, to seal anything for the sake of safety, He (the Word) allows us a signet for this purpose only.” “let our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used, or a ship's anchor, which Seleucus got engraved as a device; and if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle, and the children drawn out of the water. For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them; nor a sword, nor a bow, following as we do, peace; nor drinking-cups, being temperate” (The Instructor Book III)
(2) Methodius of Olympus (300s): “the images of our kings here, even though they be not formed of the more precious materials — gold or silver — are honoured by all” (From the Discourse on the Resurrection)
(3) Gregory of nyssa (335-394) on images and reverence of relics: “Should a person come to a place similar to our assembly today where the memory of the just and the rest of the saints is present, first consider this house's great dignity to which souls are lead. God's temple is brightly adorned with magnificence and is embellished with decorations, pictures of animals which masons have fashioned with delicate silver figures. It exhibits images of flowers” “Should a person have both the good fortune and permission to touch the relics, this experience is a highly valued prize and seems like a dream both to those who were cured and whose wish was fulfilled. The body appears as if it were alive and healthy: the eyes, mouth, ears, as well as the other senses are a cause for pouring out tears of reverence and emotion. In this way one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek”
Suan Sonna video on papacy and other general magisterium information:
My goal is to show that when you read the New Testament in its judaic 1st century context, the early church father’s ideas about Christ establishing an institution that could teach on faith and morals, excommunicate heretics, issue anathemas, and that it could pass this power on fully to successors is definitely true.
Parallels between apostles and Rabbis (and their successors)
(1)authority founded by the new Moses
(2)power of binding and loosing
(3)the historical exercise of binding and loosing
(4) ruling with heavenly authority
(5) ruling with “original” authority
(6) invocation of the holy spirit
(7) the laying on of hands
(8)succession records
(9)written and unwritten traditions
(10) the office of presbyter
(11) messianic prophecy
(12) christian self-identification
(13) ex cathedra authority
#1 moses as the “founding father”
Founded the courts of Israel (which had the role of interpreting the torah and disciplining the community in order to bind the people to the interpretation of the torah provided by the courts): ex. 18:25-26; deut. 17:8-13 (moses being explicit about the structure of the courts)
Founded the sanhedrin: num. 11:16-17
-jesus is the new moses
7 parallels which proves christ as the new moses:
Both are described as pitying the children of israel when they appear like ‘sheep without a shepherd’ (num. 27:17; mark 6:34; mt 9:36).
Both fast for 40 days (ex 34:28; mt. 4:2; lk. 4:1-2)
Both allow three privileged followers to accompany them to the mountaintop: aaron, nadab, and abihu follow moses, while peter, james, and john follow Jesus (ex. 24:1; mt. 17:1)
A cloud descends and covers the mountain (ex 24:15-18; 34:5; mt. 17:5)
Jesus’ and Moses’ face shine (ex 34:29; mt 17:2).
A voice speaks from the cloud (ex 24:16; mt 17:5)
Their disciples were frightened (ex 34:30; mt 17:6) until their leader speaks (ex 34:31; mt 17:7).
Ignatius is a good source on how the Christian Church has the structure like Judaism. He says, “In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church” (Letter to Trallians Ignatius)
If Ignatius is saying the Church is like the sanhedrin, then it means that the Church has a Magisterium, which by definition, provides interpretations of scripture.
#2: Power to bind and loose
-both the apostles and the rabbis claimed the power to bind and loose (mt 16:19; mt 18:18).
Josephus shows how rabbis had the power to bind and loose saying, “Alexandra hearkened to them to an extraordinary degree, as being herself a woman of great piety towards God. But these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her favor by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority, whilst the expenses and the difficulties of it belonged to Alexandra” (josephus, The Jewish War book 1 chapter 5 A.D. 75). The point here is that it was a pharisaical power to discipline the community and to banish or excommunicate.
-Rabbi samuel tobias lachs, A rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (he read the gospels from a jewish perspective), “[Bind and loose] mean to forbid and/or permit some act which is determined by the application of the halakhah” (p. 257).
In Judaism, there are two modes of interpretation, one is agada and the other halakhah. The New Encyclopedia of Judaism demonstrates that halakha “encomposes practically all aspects of human behavior: birth and marriage, joy and grief, agriculture and commerce, ethics and theology”(2002) (p. 232). The point is that the halakhah is an authoritative interpretation of scripture.
-The Anchor Bible Dictionary (2008) (p. 743-744) states, “By conferring the power to bind and loose upon church leadership, Jesus authorizes it to interpret the Scriptures and establish norms for Christian behavior, the Christian halakha...On the other hand binding and loosing are often interpreted as the power to ban members from the community and to readmit them.”
-Protestant Michael J. Wilkins states, “In rabbinic literature, ‘binding and loosing’ describes the authority of the rabbis in teaching and discipline to declare what is forbidden or permitted and thus to impose or remove an obligation by a doctrinal decision” (Matthew: NIV Application Commentary: From Biblical Text to Contemporary Life (2004) (p. 567)
-Protestants, Dale Allison and W.D. Davies states, “This interpretation of binding and loosing in terms of teaching authority seems to us to be correct…” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew) (2004) (p.638).
-Alfred Edersheim (a Jewish convert to Christianity) states, “The words [binding and loosing] are the literal translation of the hebrew equivalents Asar, which means to bind in the sense of prohibiting, and Hittir which means to loose in the sense of permitting...These two powers - The legislative and judicial - which belonged to the rabbinic office, Christ now transferred, and that not in their pretension, but in their reality, to His Apostles…” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah) (p. 532-32). This is basically claiming that Christ established a new authority upon the apostles.
#3 (54:15)
Both the rabbis and the apostles (and their successors) used binding and loosing to excommunicate heretics and issue anathemas.
Jewish tradition thought the Messiah would reestablish the Sanhedrin. The handbook of Jewish thought 1st edition volume 2 by Aryeh Kaplan say, “He [the Messiah] will reestablish the Sanhedrin, the religious supreme court, and legislature of the Jewish people” (374).
I
Magisterial weights according to different Church documents:
1. Donum Veritatis §23
2. Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei (1998)
(appended to John Paul II’s motu proprio Ad tuendam fidem)
3. Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem (18 May 1998)
Comments
Post a Comment