Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The Magisterium: A Cheat Sheet

Image: Sistine Hall of the Vatican Library – by Michael Osmanda (CC)

Over the past few days, as I’ve worked on this piece, I’ve learned a lot about the Church’s magisterial office. Perhaps it would be better to say I learned how much I don’t know.

As I mentioned in the article linked above. I’m not a dogmatic theologian. In fact, I’m not even any kind of theologian, whatever my degree says. A BA in Theology is pretty much a ticket to the entry level of inquiry on this stuff. I am, at best, a more-informed-than-average layman.

My friend and colleague, Dr. Michael Sirilla, is a dogmatic theologian. He is also a walking, talking, Catholic encyclopedia. I called him yesterday (and the day before that), and even recovering from a pretty serious health issue, he was still gushing forth information at a speed my flu-addled brain couldn’t hope to keep up with. Whereas the average dutiful Catholic knows that there is a Magisterium, dogmatic theologians spend much of their careers studying all of its many moving parts. It’s sort of like the difference between being a guy who loves a particular sports car, and can tell you what kind of engine it has, and how many liters, etc., and being the guy who can strip that engine down and re-assemble it without having to look at any reference material. Or, as Mike said to me, “It’s sort of like being a surgeon with a particular specialization.” Not even all the other doctors are going to know how to do it, let alone the armchair theologians on the Internet.

The most surprising thing to me was learning that the Church doesn’t have a single repository of knowledge about its own teaching office. There isn’t a document you can read somewhere that breaks down the various levels of the Magisterium and all its moving parts, with categorizations of when and where each thing is authoritative and how it relates to others. Like a giant theological scavenger hunt, you can find pieces of this puzzle in the Catechism, in a couple of instructions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (like Donum Veritatis and Professio Fidei), in a letter from Bl. Pope Pius IX, in the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius from Vatican I, in dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium from Vatican II, and so on, and so forth.

One thing I learned yesterday is that the ordinary magisterium (which the Church didn’t really start discussing in earnest until the late 19th century) can be infallible but isn’t always so. Another is that the ordinary universal magisterium is usually infallible, but some theologians can point to exceptions. (One example I came across involved the teaching in the Catechism of Trent about delayed animation — the idea that the soul enters the body some time after conception vs. more recent magisterial teachings that say ensoulment happens at conception. Both things having been taught at the level of ordinary universal magisterium.)

I was also given cause to reflect on the difference between a truth that is infallible and one that is without error. As one theologian who wrote to me yesterday made the distinction:

There is indeed a distinction between an infallible statement and an error free statement.

But an infallible statement is precisely a statement that *cannot possibly* be in error.

X *is not* false does not equal infallible.
X *cannot possibly be* false equals infallible.

It’s one thing to read all of this and say, “Sure, that makes sense.” It’s another entirely to have it mapped out so clearly in your head that when you’re having a casual conversation (or worse, a Twitter argument with the guy who doesn’t care much for your rebuttal to his sloppy article saying AL is Magisterial so we all need to just shut up) you never fail to make an important qualification. For my part, I’d certainly prefer to leave this topic to the experts. The headache I ended each day’s writing with for the past two days is not something I’d wish on anyone. (Except maybe Stephen Walford or Austin Ivereigh. But only if they actually learned something.)

Since I’m unlikely to have seen the last of this topic, however much I might wish to move on, last night, Mike Sirilla wrote up a Magisterium “cheat sheet” and sent it to me. It’s a work in progress and subject to revision, but since I thought it might be helpful to all of the theology nerds following along at home, and he graciously gave me permission to publish it and put his name on it. He reminded me that theologians are still hammering out the finer points on this stuff, and there’s a constant process of evaluation of what fits where. “This is really important,” he said, “because Christ gave a share of His teaching office to the bishops and the pope.”

I’ll include the text of his outline below, but here’s a link to a PDF version if you want to download it and/or print it out.


THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

A “Cheat Sheet”/Quick Reference Guide

Definitions:

Magisterium: the teaching office of a pope or a bishop in union with the pope;

Extraordinary magisterium: non-ordinary solemn teaching

Ordinary magisterium: part of the regular teaching duties

Universal magisterium: taught to the entire Church

Infallible (irreformable): unable to be in error due to a special charism from Christ and, therefore, unable to be reformed

Non-infallible (reformable): able to be false (very rare) and, therefore, able to be reformed (which means clarified, corrected – even overturned/contradicted – see e.g.’s below)

* * *

The following outline is drawn from my Fundamental Theology class notes and from the CDF document “Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei”: https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

I. Dogmas of divine and catholic faith:

A. Doctrines that are “divinely and formally revealed”

B. Manner and quality of proposal – infallible in each instance:

1.) Extraordinary Magisterium:

a.) Papal: “ex cathedra” solemn definitions

b.) Solemn definitions of ecumenical councils:

2.) Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

a.) Pope alone: confirmation or re-affirmation of a doctrine

b.) Bishops in communion with the pope teaching something to be held definitively as revealed.

C. Assent: theological faith

D. Censure: Heresy

E. Examples:

1.) The articles of faith of the Creed

2.) Christological and Marian dogmas

3.) Doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace

II. Definitive teachings on faith and morals (or intrinsically connected to faith and morals):

A. Teachings that are not proposed as being formally revealed (i.e., they may or may not be revealed, but they are not proposed by the magisterium as being revealed).

B . Manner and quality of proposal – infallible in each instance

1. ) Extraordinary Magisterium:

a.) Papal: “ex cathedra” solemn definitions

b.) Solemn definitions of ecumenical councils:

2.) Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

a.) Pope alone: confirmation or re-affirmation of a doctrine

b.) Bishops in communion with the pope teaching something to be held definitively as revealed.

C. Assent: firmly to be accepted and held based on “faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters”

D. Censure: loss of full communion with the Catholic Church

E. Examples:

1.) Logical connection to divine revelation (by implication, these may be able to be declared as divinely revealed):

a.) The doctrine of papal infallibility before Vatican I

b.) Doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men

c.) The illicitness of euthanasia

d.) Illicitness of prostitution

e.) Illicitness of fornication

2.) Necessary historical connection to divine revelation (not able to be declared as divinely revealed):

a.) The legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff

b.) The legitimacy of the celebration of an ecumenical council

c.) The canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)

d.) The declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations

III. Non-definitive teachings of the magisterium:

A. Teachings on faith and morals (or connected thereto) presented as true (or at least as sure) that have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium

B. Manner of proposal: ordinary and universal Magisterium (the pope alone, or pope and bishops together)

***These teachings are NOT infallible and therefore they are reformable (i.e., able to be modified, clarified, corrected, or contradicted/overturned)

C. Assent: Religious submission of will and intellect

D. Censure: Erroneous or (regarding prudential teachings) rash/dangerous

E. Examples:

a.) The teaching of Florence that the matter of Holy Orders is the handing on of the instruments

           b.) The teaching of the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) on delayed animation

c.) JPII’s teaching in Evangelium Vitae that capital punishment may only be used for a polis to defend itself (“self-defense”)

d.) Global warming is real and it is caused by man (Laudato Si)

e.) Gaudium et Spes, a. 24, First and greatest commandment is love of God and of neighbor

 

 

 

 

52 thoughts on “The Magisterium: A Cheat Sheet”

  1. I wrote the above outline in haste last night and noticed at least one error that I’d like to correct (more corrections may be forthcoming): the example I cite from “Laudato Si” is likely not a non-definitive teaching of the pope’s ordinary magisterium since it does not bear upon faith and morals – at least not directly.

    Also, the teaching on delayed animation is not in the Council of Trent but in the Catechism of Trent (the Roman Catechism).

    Also, I’d like to suggest two books by Fr. Chad Ripperger in which he does a fine job distilling much of the manual tradition (which distills and elaborates upon the medievals, who distill and elaborate upon the fathers, who distill and elaborate upon the teaching of Paul [e.g., Gal 1:8) and Christ [Mt 18:15-17]):
    1. “The Binding Force of Tradition” and
    2. “Magisterial Authority.”

    Finally, for those interested in plowing further into the sources, here are two solid tomes that serve as a decent point-of-entry:
    1. “De Notus Theologicus: Historia, Notio, Usus,” by Constantino Koser, OFM and
    2. “L’Erreur et Son Juge: Remarques sur les censures doctrinales a l’epoque moderne,” by Bruno Neveu.

    Reply
    • Thanks, Mike. I fixed the reference to Trent…that was my bad memory, not your fault.

      As for Laudato Si, it’s an encyclical, so it seems like it needs to be in the list here somewhere.

      Reply
      • Now, let’s say a Pope decided to write an “encyclical” about equine management, foaling and breaking techniques?

        What status would such writings hold in the Magesterium?

        Cuz in same moral concerns COULD be expressed, after all.

        Would I be morally compelled to halter at three days or wait to break till 4 years of age?

        Reply
    • Thank you very much for your work and this ‘Cheat sheet’. It’s priceless.
      I hope Steve somehow will let us know when you make all your corrections, when corrected version will be ready.
      God bless you. +

      Reply
    • Thank you Dr. Sirilla! You and Fr. Ripperger bring much clarity to this present time of confusion. May the Lord Bless you and your important work.

      Reply
    • Indeed, it appears that in particular, we see MANY statements in the current pontificate where the Pope speaks on issues that in past days would not even be considered topics of faith and morals, yet are being treated as such today.

      Or, put another way, we see certain “new laws” being established that might be said to form a “hedge about the law” a la the Pharisees of old, in for example, the condemnation of the use of airconditioning or other “environmental sins” created sort of ex nihilo as a whole new set of what are arguably impossible to obey laws. This has troubled me because as a convert I affirm the Catholic teaching that God does not demand of us what we cannot achieve, we only miss the mark because of our sin and personal choices. Yet it would seem that this new set of “sins” are acts largely impossible for a person to avoid merely by living in today’s world. This has grave consequences, for if such sins are a sort of perpetual and impossible to avoid continuance of original sin, then baptism means nothing and neither does confession or penance. Which, when you think about it, appears to be the exact ulterior motive of the powers-that-be: to hold in their hand a way to condemn whoever they want to condemn while remaining above it all themselves, all the while diminishing the value of the Sacraments and Tradition by making adultery the moral equal of flipping an extra light on in the living room.

      People are not stupid, and quickly smell a rat, and in quick time will have no regard for the concept of sin itself. A situation that already appears to be upon us…

      Certainly these sins of carbon footprint shoe size don’t seem to apply to those like Al Gore, Leonardo de Caprio and the Pope whose lives and message are soooooooo important that the size of THEIR carbon footprint is immaterial to their personal moral culpability while it is quite relvant to “ours”. The the Jet Set classes of Hollywood, the Hague and the Vatican can flitter about leaving contrails all over heaven itself and incur no guilt, while the rest of us slobs are in danger of hellfire for having a pet or going for a motorbike ride.

      I just finished the Cat of the Council of Trent so thank you for that clarification!

      At any rate, THANK YOU for your material. Great stuff!

      Reply
    • Thank you.

      I’m glad to read your correction regarding Laudato Si. I would suggest that this particular assertion is so far outside the competence of the papacy that it doesn’t even merit the description “teaching”.

      Reply
  2. To be even considered a matter subject to magisterial teaching of any kind, the matter must be one of faith or morals. Global warming is neither.

    Reply
    • Global warming and climate change has gone on “forever”. To what extent man is contributing is still uncertain. If there is culpability, it is a collective sin. And, in truth, there may be sin involved. Scripture tells us that man was made stewards of the earth and given the command to have dominion over it. Dominion implies stewardship, not usury or exploitation.

      Reply
  3. Thanks for the correction. Also, the ordinary universal magisterium, when it pertains to Catholic faith, and is something always and everywhere held, is infallible. It was so stated in LG 25, which summarizes the magisterium. As for Papal teaching alone, it is only infallible when certain conditions are met: he needs to speak “in virtue of his office..as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith.” So he can’t be sending a private letter, or an exhortation about discipline. It must be explicitly to everyone and it must be something that confirms the faith. Most importantly, in order to have infallibility when teaching, the pope needs to speak in a “a definitive act” – which doesn’t mean in English what it means in Latin. It doesn’t mean “a particular certain act”. It means an act that defines, “definatory” if there were such a word. He must be “defining” something. And it must be an occasion in which he “proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.” In other words, he can’t hint at it, imply it in footnotes, or say so retroactively. And he can’t change faith or morals by using non-infallible changes of discipline that logically imply a change of faith or morals.

    Reply
    • And we must give assent to the teachng of a Pope even if it is not an utterance ex cathedra. This gets to the issue we discussed under the other article on the difficulty of knowing just what exactly this current Pope is actually trying to teach.

      Reply
      • A kind of assent, yes, but not to any teaching – it has to be formal, not in an interview, a private sermon or letter, or an audience off the cuff remarks. One pope gave heretical sermons and had to be corrected.

        Reply
        • The above comments reveal a great deal of confusion and, as I recall from my theology studies, inaccuracies. It would, therefore, be very helpful if Dr. Sirilla would put together an article that clearly summarizes the issues under discussion.

          Reply
  4. My simplistic layman understanding is that in general: If the Perrenial Teaching of the Church is contradicted by a current Pope or the living magisterium, then it is safe to follow that which the Church has always and everywhere taught. That also means that what a current pope or living magisterium teaches is not superior to Tradition and thousands of years of constant teaching. The living magisterium should preserve and pass down the fullness of the faith as they themselves received it. There can be an organic development of doctrine, but there cannot be a rupture where a teaching suddenly has a completely different meaning than the way it had always and everywhere been understood. I know it’s much more complicated than this, but if this is generally correct, please confirm or correct this notion.

    Reply
  5. I’d like to ask Dr. Sirilla a question, not a technical one at all, just seeking his opinion.

    Do you think Dr. Sirilla that the damage done to Catholic doctrine in recent decades is so great that after the Restoration to come (whenever it is), Catholics then living are likely to see a number of infallible pronouncements by the then Pope because that will be the only possible way to put various genies back for good in their bottles? There are all sorts of examples one could imagine.

    Reply
      • Thank you. I believe that a long, very solemn teaching Pontificate is now urgently needed. But I myself think we are on the very edge of things. A Chastisement is very close; the End of Time itself maybe further off.

        Reply
      • Given the great apostasy we are living in, which goes all the way to the top, the Second Coming cannot be all that far off.

        Reply
        • Well, we must remember that Our Lady of Fatima’s age of peace is to precede the Second Coming. If it is of short duration then maybe the Second Coming “cannot be far off.” However, Pope Pius XII said man “will enjoy a long era of order, peace and justice” which would indicate that the Second Coming is not imminent.
          JMJ

          Reply
    • YES, a great question. It seems to me that Bp Schneider is similarly predisposed in calling for a Syllabus of Errors pertaining to interpretations of Vatican 2 as well. The fact is, in common talk, doctrine is so variable or as I like to put it, the “Teaching on the street” has changed so much, the Church desperately needs for lack of a better term, a “theologically violent” series of clarifications.

      Without them, in effect, we are difficult to distinguish from the Anglican Communion.

      Reply
      • The last paragraph of your comment is interesting. I was away from the Church for several years. I returned via a series of steps, the last of which was Anglicanism. Once vack in the fold, I was dumbfounded to discover that the Novus Ordo is virtually identical to the Anglican mass in their Book of Common Prayer (this was before the new innovations of recent years).

        Reply
        • I came to the Church directly from Lutheranism {raised Methodist, then Anglican and then Reformed all in the search for the truth!} only to find Luther resurrected in much of what I saw.

          Praise God for my wonderful FSSP parish!!!

          May God save and protect the Catholic Church!

          Reply
    • The ‘Restoration to come’ is the golden age of the era of peace, the outcome of the Triumph of the Immaculate
      Heart of Mary. This triumph will be the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy made in the Garden of Eden ─ “She shall crush thy head and thou will lie in wait for her heel.” Gen 3:15.

      This is the final decisive battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. We must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility (Sr Lucia to Fr Fuentes 26 Dec 1957).

      Our Lady of Good Fortune revealed to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres: ….. “then will come my time: in astounding fashion, I shall destroy Satan’s pride, casting him beneath my feet, chaining him up in the depths of hell, leaving Church and country freed at last from his cruel tyranny.”

      Pope Pius XII, well aware of the Fatima prophecies, described the golden age of Our Lady’s Triumph in his Easter message of 1958. “Before the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, descends from Heaven from the throne of God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, man will enjoy true happiness on earth. Human dignity will be respected, man’s necessities will be satisfied, and he will enjoy a long era of order, peace and justice.”

      As the devil will be removed from the affairs of men it is difficult to see the need to ‘put various genies back
      for good in their bottles.’
      JMJ

      Reply
      • Putting the genies away is necessary to restore the entire bride of Christ to the full and shining glory given her by her Groom. The choice between God and Satan is not limited to the final battle. That has always been the choice and EVERY decision we make in some way is a choice between God (Love) and Satan (Hate).

        Reply
        • It seems that I need to clarify my position. If you can expand on your viewpoint I will try to resolve the matter of Great Stalin’s genies. Margaret, would you care to contribute?
          JMJ

          Reply
          • Thank you for asking – its so thoughtful of you! I’ll try. Here’s my .02:

            In Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont, he cites prophecies which state that there will be a great ecumenical council (NOT VII) which will be the greatest of all councils and rectify the damage done after VII. So apparently the genies will be put back in their bottles until the end of the period of peace promised by Our Lady. After that, the Antichrist will come and be opposed by Elias and Enoch. Then the defeat of Antichrist and Judgement Day.

            Hope this helps.

          • There are many difficulties with Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont. I realise that this little book is to be found on many bookshelves and is held in certain regard by many older traditional Catholics. Nevertheless, there are a number of real objections.

            One. Despite the provisions of canon law, Yves Dupont did not submit his book for approval to Church authority. For that reason, it carries no Nil Obstat or Imprimatur.

            Second. At the time of publication particular prohibitions included “if not duly approved ….. revelations, visions, prophecies.” (Moral and Pastoral Theology, H Davis SJ, Vol II, Precepts p 449).

            Third. The effect of a prohibition is that “the forbidden book may not, without due permission, be
            published, read, sold, kept, translated, or lent to another person. (Davis p 448).

            Four. His book contains non-approved private revelations, manifestly false revelations and even the occult Nostradamus.

            Five. All in all, the book is an amalgam of true, false, unverifiable, bizarre (Mother Shipton) and occult sources on which he bases his questionable commentary.

            Since the days of Yves Dupont the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dispensed with the requirement for the Imprimatur. Therefore, there is no protection from the plague of erroneous
            religious literature. Not that the current Prefect Card Müller or local ordinaries would have made an iota of difference if the requirement was still in place.

            I restrict my studies on prophecy to Sacred Scripture (Douay Rheims), Church approved revelations and Mariology in particular St Louis De Montfort.

            Margaret, I have not addressed your contra view simply because I do not accept Yves Dupont as a serious or reliable source. However, I would be pleased to attempt an answer if you wish to continue the discussion.
            JMJ

          • I think Benedict mentioned it to me some time ago, but he didn’t go into detail like you did. I didn’t know there were false revelations (not including Nostradamus; I take him with a grain of salt) in there. I use it as a guideline.

            Thank you for the explanation. It was very educational. ????

          • There has never been an era of peace in mankind’s history. Yet this is what is foretold in the promise and prophecy of Our Lady of Fatima. She said: “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be given to the world.” All humanity, the whole world will enjoy a reign of peace.

            Considering the whole of human history up to now, this is truly a great promise. This same promised period of peace has also been foretold in the Bible. We find this prophecy announced several times in the Old Testament: “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into spades: nation shall not take sword against nation: neither shall they learn war any more.” (Micheas 4:3)

            “They shall turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they be exercised any more to war.” (Isaias 2:4) “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid. The calf and the lion and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them.” (Isaias 11:6)

            Fr Gruner wrote the above paras in LÓsservatore Fatima, Special Edition, October 2013.
            Consider the following tremendous effects of the Triumph.

            Catholic priest, Hebraist and scriptural exegete Dr Diez Macho wrote in his ‘History of Salvation’: “Humanity began with Paradise and it will return to the Paradisiacal state in which good will triumph over evil, virtue over wickedness, the Messiah over Satan.”

            Again Fr Benjamin Sanchez wrote in ‘Israel and the Prophecies’; “The prophetic expressions referring to the abundance of material benefits, the exuberant fertility of the earth, longevity, happiness and peace in the world ….. are without doubt, a genuine probability and not merely symbolical phrases.”

            The many references in Sacred Scripture to this overwhelming triumph of the Cross have to be interpreted literally because it is not possible to interpret them symbolically. Pope Benedict XV, in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus quotes St Jerome in reference to all this. “Because it is not possible that so many promises as are expressed in a literal sense by the holy prophets should be
            reduced to nothing other than empty formulae and expressions of rhetorical images …..”

            This golden age was confirmed by Pope Pius XII, the ‘Fatima Pope’, in his Easter message of 1958 when he said “man will enjoy true happiness on earth. Human dignity will be respected, man’s necessities will be satisfied and he will enjoy a long era of order, peace and justice,”

            All the evidence points to these days being the great apostasy, the approaching chastisement
            being the reign of Antichrist, the Triumph being the fulfilment of Gen 3:15 and the era of peace, fulfilling Scripture, being a long period of time where, as St Louis de Montfort explains, Jesus Christ reigns in the hearts of men.

            The consequence of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is that the human race will be
            confronted by a radical new situation. Jesus Christ will reign on earth, not in person as some protestants claim, but by grace. He supplants Satan, the ‘prince of the world’ (Jn 14:30) and the effects of Satan’s removal from human affairs will be unimaginable.

            Following what is variously called the Judgement of the Nations, the Great Chastisement, the
            Reign of Antichrist, we will see the most glorious period in the history of the human race. Whilst concupiscence will subsist in man, diabolic temptation will disappear.

            JMJ

  6. Steve, will Dr. Sirilla be a guest contributor and provide further explanations of dogmatic theology and how the Magisterium actually functions, levels of authority, how it fulfills its role and how all the pieces and parts interact (your giant jigsaw puzzle analogy above)?

    Somehow I have a sense that what is supposed to happen isn’t what is happening and how it is supposed to work isn’t how it is working. And I don’t have any theology degree — not even a BA entrance level. But something is very, very wrong in the upper echelon of Catholic Church leadership.

    And by the way, the image of the Sistine Hall of the Vatican Library is stunningly beautiful. It is breathtaking. I could spend a few hours just staring at the murals and artwork.

    Reply
    • I’d love to see the Vatican Library. In particular, I’d look for the original Douay-Rheims Bible and the 33 articles of the Union of Brest-Litovsk. Also the Latin typical edition of the Divine Liturgy from 1942-1944. (Sigh.)

      Reply
  7. Dr Sirilla, what about statements like these below, which are obviously contradictory? Are we left to just do our best to follow contradiction? How do we know which one is in the magisterium ordinary or extraordinary? Are they both in th emagisterium, but one more infallible than the other? To they cancel each other out so that there is no teaching on the church in government, and we still await an infallible teaching?

    Both quotes seem pretty weighty, the first having a deliberate statement that all the faithful must believe this, the second from an ecumenical council and promulgated by a pope….

    From quanta cura:

    For you know well, Venerable Brethren, that at this time there are found not a few who, applying to civil intercourse the impious and absurd principles of what they call Naturalism, dare teach “that the best form of Society, and the exigencies of civil progress, absolutely require human society to be constituted and governed without any regard whatsoever to Religion, as if this [Religion] did not even exist, or at least without making any distinction between true and false religions.” Contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, these persons do not hesitate to assert, that “the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the Government of correcting, by enacted penalties, the violators of the Catholic Religion, except when the main- tenance of the public peace requires it.” From this totally false notion of social government, they fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI (lately quoted) the insanity [deliramentum] (Ibid.): namely, “that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalien- able) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty, to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press, or by any other means.”

    Compared to dignitatus humanae:

    God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.

    And
    2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

    The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

    Reply
  8. I am rather surprised that Avery Cardinal Dulles’ book entitled ‘Magisterium: Guardian and Teacher of the Faith’, has not been mentioned. Is there a reason for this?

    Reply
  9. Not very dearly beloved,

    We often talk about walking together don’t we but to walk we need to use our legs and this then is the theme of today’s reflection. I find this little rhyme very helpful in this consideration. It was first told to me by Bernardo the Blind Beggar of Buenos Aires who I first met in an opium den I mean in an alleyway when on one of my visits to the peripheries.

    I’ve got two legs from my waist to the ground and
    When I move them they walk around and
    When I lift them they climb the stairs and
    When I wax them they ain’t got hairs.

    The sublime pictures conjured up by this mystical reflection enable one to see clearly the path that lies before us as we sweep away the vestiges of the old medieval judgmental Church ahem as we include those who were previously excluded from the Sacraments Cardinal Maradiaga bring me some tissues I seem to be frothing at the mouth again not issues tissues you idiot I’ve already got issues that’s what the tablets are for anyway where was I ah yes walking well as we go forward together in joyful dialogue sometimes we will need to just stroll along other times we need to hike and on other occasions we will ramble together but for certain careerist Cardinals who ask questions I can’t answer it’s more of a forced march really.

    (Allocution given by the Holy Father Francis on the occasion of the Feast of the Holy Shufflers, 2017)

    Reply
  10. Think I will print, fold, and tuck this into the front cover of my CCC. Just have a hunch this will be coming in handy in the months ahead.

    Reply
  11. This is all well and good . . . just make sure you don’t fall into the same quagmire as the dissenters from 1960-present who used magisterial qualifications to dismiss doctrine.

    Reply
  12. Cite or link to more sources when you write about infallibility. Students have to write essays on these topics, so its important to give them good sources. Avoid bad logic explanations. If object A can not possibly be in error, object A can not be false. If it is not possible to be in error, then it is not possible to be false. A teaching can not be false and be appropriate (not in error) at the same time. Either a teaching is in error and false or it is not in error and true. I am aware of the logic distinctions between truth and falsehood, validity and invalidity, sound and unsound, but are you proposing a distinction between error and falsehood? seems fishy.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...