Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

On the Modes of Exercise of the Magisterium – Part II: Evaluating Amoris Laetitia

(Part II of a two-part series. Read Part I here.)

In the first part of this essay I attempted to cut through some of the confusion that frequently surrounds discussions of the various modes of exercise of the magisterium, particularly with reference to the term ‘ordinary magisterium’, which can mean two different things in two different contexts.

To recap briefly, the original meaning of the term ‘ordinary magisterium’, as it was intended to be understood when it was originally invented in the middle of the 19th century, referred to the infallible transmission of divine revelation (Scripture and Tradition) through the living tradition of the Church apart from the official documents of the supreme magisterium (popes and ecumenical councils). Over the course of time, the same term came to be used to refer to the teaching contained in the magisterial documents of popes and ecumenical councils whenever this teaching fell short of being an extraordinary definition. The first ordinary magisterium (often called the ‘ordinary and universal magisterium’) is infallible; the second ordinary magisterium (sometimes called the ‘authentic magisterium’) is not infallible.

 

How to Evaluate Magisterial Documents

When evaluating the degree of authority of the teaching contained in any individual papal document (the same principles apply to ecumenical councils), the first step is to identify what judgments are being proposed in matters of faith or morals (as opposed to purely disciplinary legislation or to assertions about other areas of human knowledge not connected with faith or morals).

The next step is to identify the quality or note of the doctrinal proposition:

  1. If a doctrine is proposed as one that must be firmly believed as divinely revealed, then we have an infallible definition of dogma by the extraordinary magisterium of the pope speaking ex cathedra. The response due to this kind of teaching is the assent of divine faith. Its rejection would be heresy.
  2. If a doctrine is proposed as one that must be definitively held by all the faithful, then we have an infallible definition of doctrine by the extraordinary magisterium of the pope speaking ex cathedra. The response due to this kind of teaching is a firm and definitive assent based on faith in the Church’s infallibility in these matters. To reject such a doctrine would separate one from full communion with the Church.
  3. If a doctrine is proposed as true or sure but without the note of definitive obligation, then we have an authoritative (but not infallible) proposition of doctrine by the authentic magisterium of the pope. The response due to this kind of teaching is a religious submission of will and intellect. Failure to assent to this kind of teaching, without grave reason, would be rash.
  4. If a doctrine is proposed merely as possible or probable, then it does not rise to the level of magisterial teaching and does not impose any obligation of assent or adherence.

 

The Case of Amoris laetitia

In the case of Amoris laetitia, there is a general consensus that it represents, at least in the main, an exercise of the authentic magisterium (category 3 above), though there may be portions of the text that don’t even rise to that level.

The kind of response owed to this kind of teaching is specified by Vatican II in Lumen gentium 25 where it says that a “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.” There is a lengthy discussion in the 1990 CDF document Donum veritatis (§§ 23–31) about what this kind of response entails. To put the matter briefly, a genuine internal assent to the truth of the teaching is generally expected, although there can be cases were it is legitimate to withhold this kind of assent for serious reasons. This is because we are dealing precisely with the non-infallible teaching of the Church, which by definition could be mistaken; at the same time, since the Church enjoys a special divine assistance in the exercise of her mission, even when the charism of infallibility is not involved, it would be wrong to conclude that the Church could be habitually mistaken in these matters.

 

A Particularly Egregious Exaggeration of the Authority of Amoris laetitia

Stephen Walford, in his February 2, 2017 piece in the Vatican Insider, takes this “charism of special assistance” as his point of departure for constructing an argument on the basis of which he concludes:

“We must affirm that Pope Francis cannot possibly be in error in his ordinary magisterium concerning issues of faith and morals, and thus his teaching that under certain, carefully considered cases, Holy Communion can be given to persons in irregular situations is perfectly valid and influenced by the Holy Spirit.” (My emphasis)

That is an audacious claim. Let’s try to follow the steps of his argument. His first premise, drawn from Pope John Paul II’s commentary on Lumen gentium 25 in his Wednesday Audience of March 17, 1993, is that the ordinary magisterium of the pope enjoys a “charism of special assistance” even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. So far, so good.

He then adds that Amoris laetitia is certainly an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, which is unobjectionable as long as we understand that the term ‘ordinary magisterium’ in this context refers to the ‘authentic magisterium’ of the pope not speaking ex cathedra and not to the ‘ordinary magisterium’ of the bishops dispersed throughout the world, which is infallible. These are, as I argued earlier, two very different things.

Walford continues:

“Can a Pope teach error in his ordinary magisterium in matters of faith and morals? St John Paul’s answer is a definite no.”

Now to say that the pope “cannot teach error” in his ordinary magisterium is the same as saying that the pope is infallible in his ordinary magisterium. That’s just what infallible means. Prior to Vatican II it was fairly common for theologians to argue that the ordinary magisterium of the pope is infallible, but this is a rare claim these days. Does John Paul II really teach this? Walford quotes a text that does seem to support this idea:

“Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, granted to Peter and his successors so that they would not err in matters of faith and morals, but rather shed great light on the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases.” (John Paul II, Wednesday Audience of March 24, 1993)

I have to admit that the first time I read this text I also thought that the pope was endorsing the infallibility of the ordinary papal magisterium. But one of my theology professors at the time helpfully drew my attention to some other remarks that John Paul II makes in the same context. In his Audience of March 10, 1993, he contrasts the ordinary papal magisterium against the ex cathedra definitions of the pope, which he identifies with the extraordinary magisterium; then in the Audience of March 24, 1993, he clearly asserts that the pope speaks infallibly only (‘solo’) when he speaks ex cathedra. Taken together these statements exclude an infallible exercise of the ordinary papal magisterium.

So if we are to assume that John Paul II is not just contradicting himself, I think we have to interpret the statement quoted by Walford as referring to a general protection from habitual error rather than an infallible protection from all error.

Walford’s next authority is Pope Innocent III, who says:

“The Lord clearly intimates that Peter’s successors will never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but will instead recall the others and strengthen the hesitant.” (Pope Innocent III, Apostolicae Sedis Primatus, 1199)

What Walford needed to do at this point was to show that these words apply not only to the ex cathedra definitions of the popes but also to their teaching when they are not speaking ex cathedra. Instead he turns aside to the question about whether a pope can fall into heresy as a “private theologian,” which is really irrelevant to the question of Amoris laetitia unless Cardinal Burke is right that it does not even rise to the level of being an act of the magisterium. In any case, however, the idea that the pope cannot fall into error as a private theologian has never been more than the private opinion of some people; it has never been endorsed by the Church.

Next up is a pair of even less relevant quotes from Pope Pius XII which demonstrate the “supreme importance of the papacy.” Since when was that the point at issue? Then there is some meandering commentary about how the popes have the task of teaching the truth, supporting the truth, and guarding the true faith not only in their ex cathedra definitions but also in their ordinary teaching, which is all absolutely true and does absolutely nothing to prove that they receive the additional grace to do all of this infallibly in their ordinary magisterium.

Finally, Walford appeals to the text of Pope Pius IX’s Tuas libenter, in which we are reminded that the dogmatic teaching of the Church is not limited to the solemn definitions of popes and ecumenical councils but includes the dogmatic teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church dispersed throughout the world. Walford offers no commentary on this text but simply moves directly to his conclusion that:

“Pope Francis cannot possibly be in error in his ordinary magisterium concerning issues of faith and morals, and thus to his teaching that under certain, carefully considered cases, Holy Communion can be given to persons in irregular situations.”

This, however, completely overlooks the fact that Pius IX was speaking explicitly about the authority of the ordinary magisterium of the Church dispersed throughout the world, which is, as I argued previously, an allusion to the living tradition of the whole Church, and not to the magisterial teaching of the popes when they are not speaking ex cathedra.

I have to admit that it can seem very tempting to reason that the ordinary magisterium of the pope must be infallible because the ordinary magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world is infallible. But to do so is to commit the fallacy of equivocation, because the term ‘ordinary magisterium’ means different things when applied to the Church dispersed throughout the world and when applied to the pope. In the former case, it means the infallible teaching of the living tradition transmitted apart from the documents of the magisterium; in the latter case, it means the non-infallible teaching of the pope and bishops contained in the documents of the magisterium. Once the terms are clearly understood the argument contains its own refutation.

Before ending, Walford throws off a couple of rhetorical questions and cites some additional authorities to reinforce his position.

He asks:

“Do we then pick and choose which teachings of which popes to accept? That would be tantamount to a form of Protestantism. The Council of Lyons stated the Pope: ‘has the duty to defend the truth of the faith, and it is his responsibility to resolve all disputed matters in the area of faith’.”

I answer: We accept all of the infallible teachings of all of the popes and we accept all of the non-infallible teaching of all of the popes insofar as it does not conflict with the infallible teaching of the Church.

I fail to see anything very Protestant about that. And the citation of Lyons is, of course, true — but once again beside the point. Popes defend the truth and resolve disputed questions of faith through their ex cathedra definitions. Indeed, that is the principal purpose of ex cathedra definitions. If Walford wants to argue that this text of Lyons goes beyond ex cathedra definitions he will have to provide some reasons for thinking so.

Then he asks:

“If protection from the Lord were only to apply to rare ex cathedra declarations how could all disputes of faith possibly be resolved? We must remember St Ambrose’ famous phrase: ‘Where Peter is, there is the Church. Where the Church is, there is no death but life eternal’.”

I answer: All disputes of faith could be resolved by ex cathedra definitions, which need not be as rare as they are and are probably much less rare than Wolford supposes.

They are only rare by comparison with the ordinary (universal) magisterium, which is exercised literally every day in the preaching and teaching by which the faith is handed down all over the world. Even several ex cathedra definitions per month would still be rare by comparison. At the First Vatican Council, in the official explanation of the intended sense of the definition of papal infallibility, Bishop Vincent Gasser, speaking on behalf of the deputation charged with the drafting of the definition, remarked that it was impossible to specify the form in which ex cathedra definitions had to be given, since “already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See” (Mansi 52:1215). Granted, this is not part of the definition itself, but the understanding of the text as presented in Gasser’s speech was the basis upon which the council fathers voted to pass and promulgate the text, so it counts for something in determining the right interpretation of the text of Vatican I.

As for St. Ambrose’s famous phrase: “Where Peter is, there is the Church. Where the Church is, there is no death but life eternal,” this is a beautiful expression of the necessity for salvation of membership in the Roman Catholic Church and of the primacy of Rome as the center of the Church’s unity. But I thought we were arguing about whether the ordinary papal magisterium is infallible?

To paraphrase Walford’s concluding lines, I would say that if we claim to hold Tradition dear, if we claim to defend Tradition with all our strength, then we must accept and defend the magisterium of Pope Francis insofar as it does not deviate from Tradition. There is no other interpretation available; the Church has spoken.

 

Donum Veritatis on Non-Infallible Church Teaching

Since Amoris laetitia does not contain any ex cathedra definitions, and since the pope is only infallible when he defines ex cathedra, the charism of infallibility is not involved in Amoris laetitia.

But since Amoris laetitia does contain teaching in matters of faith and morals, and since the authentic magisterium of the pope is engaged in such teaching even when it is not ex cathedra, the charism of divine assistance is potentially involved in Amoris laetitia, and this charism excludes the probability but not the possibility of error.

Because authentic magisterial teaching is probably true (in the abstract), we owe to it a religious submission of will and intellect, which is a genuine internal assent to the truth of the teaching. But because it is also possibly false, this assent is at best provisional rather than definitive, and there can be serious reasons for withholding assent entirely, such as would most obviously be the case if it were in conflict with infallible teaching which always requires absolute and definitive assent.

What to do in such a case? The CDF, in the instruction Donum veritatis, 24, says this:

“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.”

A theologian who finds himself unable to assent to some teaching of the authentic papal magisterium should not present his own opinions as though they were non-arguable conclusions (DV 27). And he should “refrain from giving untimely public expression to them” (DV 27), which implies that there may be a timely public expression of disagreement. And then, DV 30:

If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian’s part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

In the case of Amoris laetitia, it seems clear to me that this is exactly the course of action that the Cardinals who submitted the dubia to Pope Francis are faithfully trying to pursue. Not to mention Code of Canon Law, 212, 3.

 

47 thoughts on “On the Modes of Exercise of the Magisterium – Part II: Evaluating Amoris Laetitia”

  1. “A theologian who finds himself unable to assent to some teaching of the authentic papal magisterium should not present his own opinions as though they were non-arguable conclusions (DV 27).”

    DV assumes the context of a theologian who wishes to propose his own opinions over and against the teaching of the Church. It doesn’t really speak to theologians or non-theologians who are trying to defend the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Faith from apostates in the hierarchy who have sold out to Satan and are trying to overturn Dominical doctrine.

    I am sure you are being theologically precise and decorus in your presentation of the arguments, but for many of us who follow the “authentic magisterium” of the Pope as he sees it (i.e. it includes interviews with journalists and correspondents in the back of areoplanes) the propensity to error is not “rare” in the slightest – it occurs on a daily and weekly basis with a mind-numbingly, depressive monotony. Rather than parsing and fisking his utterances to see if they can be in any way reconciled with the Catholic faith, it is easier to retain one’s sanity by ignoring the old goat completely in the hope that he will soon be replaced by a Catholic.

    Reply
    • AMEN!

      Surely the whole argument of Dr. Joy rests on the supposition that the Popes hold personally to the Catholic religion, are rooted in Tradition and seek to teach within the confines of that rootedness.

      I fail to see how his precise exposition of the Extraordinary and Authentic Magisterium can cope with a man who burbles crap on a daily basis, seems to be (according even to some Protestants) a Protestant, despises or even hates Tradition and is rooted in falsehood and error.

      Reply
      • This pope rules with an iron fist and he believes he is the Magisterium of the Church.

        Somebody has got to tell him, ” ah….No you are not.”

        Reply
      • Because, Komrade, one cannot accurately diagnose deviations from the norm without first recognizing the norm.

        I have chosen to publish these articles in all their precision precisely because they give us a baseline on how we should approach magisterial teachings, lest, in the midst of this Kamikaze Papacy (and a good deal of what came before it) we habituate ourselves to something contrary. I know that I, personally, am far from a place where my default state of mind would consider it “would be wrong to conclude that the Church could be habitually mistaken in these matters”.

        It is important, too, to recognize that theologians are bound by these procedures, which helps to explain why they proceed so much carefully than the Com Box Warrior Squad. They are at times frustrated by their constraints, but feel a duty to honor the very same system of rules that Francis and his cabal so wantonly disregard. (If he isn’t going to respect the Way Things Are Done, it is arguably that much more important that those who love the Church DO.)

        It also helps to explain, I think, the excruciating process of the dubia.

        Part of the damage being rendered here is a complete disregeard for long-established process that upholds and safeguards the Church’s divinely-given authority. Even those who love Our Lord most may, in their ardor to fight for Him, forget to preserve the dignity of his bride.

        In other words: all of this matters a great deal more than it is convenient for us to believe. So we start by grounding ourselves — and remember, many of our readers have never studied these things, and those who have (myself included) can always use greater clarity — and we go from there.

        Reply
        • Sometimes, I think our Church is so bound in all of the “process”, but I acknowledge your points here of this very excruciating process regarding the dubia.

          The very constraints of our cardinals, as seen through these articles, will have to be weighed at some point, I think.

          Years ago, during a miserable, ice cold day in Ohio, my husband,a physician and I came upon a very terrible accident. Only a few bystanders were on the scene, as an ambulance and police had not arrived. My dear husband, a good and strong person, was conflicted about stopping for all those ” legal reasons” were racing through his mind.
          I, not bearing any of these consequences, as a nurse, just said, ” Stop. Trust the Holy Spirit.”

          No glory here, mind you, for the weight was upon my husband.
          Yet, sometimes, perhaps, it is those, like us, who still must say to our cardinals,
          “NO! Stop this.”

          Perhaps an unfair analogy.

          Reply
          • I think TGS, Steve and you all express valid points.

            I admit exhaustion as a Catholic.

            But alas, it is the Zeitgeist to demand us to define the word “is”.

        • The article reassures me that Bergoglio is not speaking authoritatively most of the time and I can continue to believe those things that I was taught.

          Reply
        • The sports fan, who cares passionately about his team and frustrated by a (possibly falsely perceived) lack of progress, can sit in the stadium, or even in front of the T.V. munching a burger and fries and swilling a ‘cold one’ while yelling out into empty space where the coach and the whole team are “not doing it right”. Substitute “Com Box Warrior” for sports fan, and in this instance, Cardinal Burke et al for the coach and the team. Personally I have the greatest confidence in, and admiration for the four ‘dubia cardinals’. Their only concern is that the fullness of Catholic truth will prevail, but such great difficulties as those created by A.L. cannot be resolved by adopting a “bull in a china shop” approach. These four cardinals, in their exemplary humility and charity, are far too wise for that.

          Reply
        • It seems to me that the problem goes back to the pevious three Pontificates, from Blessed Paul VI on. Vatican II strongly committed the Church to dialogue, and Pope Paul dedicated his first encyclical “Ecclesiam Suam” to it. The way this was applied to dissenting theologians such as Josef Fuchs, Bernard Häring and Charles Curran, to mention only a few, was a protacted system of examination of their published writing, in which the errors were made available to anyone who wanted to read them and were taught by these professors to Catholic theology students, including seminarians. It took the CDF more than 20 years to “close down” Curran and have him removed from the CUA. Marciano Vidal, another influential dissenter, especially in the Spanish speaking world was eventually brought to renounce, at least publicly his errors, not before he had done immense damage, as his books were used as textbooks in seminaries and Theology Faculties. Háring was not even removed and he not only dissented from Humanae Vitae, but also rom Veritatis Splendor, He is commemorated with a plaque at the Academia Alfonsoniana in Rome itself. Another problem has been the unwillingness of bishops to fulfill their duties due to fear from bad press, and wait for Rome to do the “dirty work”. Everyone knows that Rome proceeds at a snail’s. pace. How is it that priests accused of sexual abuse of minors are forcefully removed from their parishes without even any formal indictment by any judge or prosecutor, and purveyors of heresy are allowed to teach it and publish it for more than 20 years with no negative consequences? Besides, not a few of these professors with teaching positions in Catholic and Pontifical Universities have been the teachers of many who later became bishops, so that it should be no wonder that we have so many bishops and entire Bishops’ Conference going off the rails regarding fundamental moral teaching, such as stating that couples who are living in adulterous unions can aproach the Eucharist if their conscience is at ease?.

          Such a procedure would have been unimaginable under Popes like St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII. In some cases, the Holy Office exceeded in its zeal and persecuted the likes of De Lubac and Congar, but it seems that the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Discipline has been lost in the Church and we now have an ant-nomian Church. Guarantees are needed to prevent injustices from being committed. The lack of them is now being seen in the case of priests falsely accused of pederasty and immediatley removed, when the same would not occur in the case of medical doctors or psychologists. . Again the pendulum effect. The Church seems to have forgotten Aristotle’s adage “in medio es virtus”.

          Reply
    • The last sentence says it all. Personally, I am getting very tired of having to sift EVERYTHING PF says. Articles of this nature, however interesting, just show how far Modernist things have progressed in the Church hierarchy. Now the laity have to hold advanced degrees in Canon law and theology just to sort it out. My point is it is getting very tiresome at best trying to decide where in the Magisterium to place the ravings of a madman. Sorry for the rant, I just pray for sanity and Catholicity in the Church once more.

      Reply
    • Deacon_Augustine,

      Of course nothing I said about the authentic magisterium applies to airplane interviews, etc. Error is to be presumed rare in the actual authentic magisterium, and this remains true from a historical perspective even if it may have become more common recently.

      Reply
      • I agree with you in theory – prior to this papacy I would glady acknowledge that it was reasonable to presume error to be rare in the authentic magisterium. The problem is that Bergoglio seems to think that his Scalfari interviews, his off the cuff homilies etc. all form part of his magisterium (see interview with La Nacion 07/12/14). I suppose the pertinent question is: “Where does the authentic magisterium begin and end?” If it includes his daily homilies, then error has not only become “more common” – it is already rife. And it will become much worse with the departure of Muller from the CDF. Pandora’s box has been opened and “the god of surprises” has jumped out.

        Reply
  2. I’m a little confused on this “quality or note” point, specifically in relation to category 2, Doctrines “that must be definitively held by all the faithful”, partake of Papal infallibility, but are NOT Divinely revealed, whose rejection therefore (if I’m reading this right) does not constitute heresy, but merely something like schism.

    Are there any examples?

    (Presumably not since 1870?)

    Reply
    • It’s not that they positively aren’t divinely revealed. They could be. It’s just that they are not specifically said to be divinely revealed in the infallible definition itself.

      I think that Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994) is a pretty clear example: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

      Another one is from Pope Leo XIII in 1896: “Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”

      In the JPII example, there’s probably a good case to be made that the doctrine is in fact revealed. But in the Leo XIII case it’s pretty clear that the doctrine is not revealed (since Christ and the Apostles said nothing about Anglican orders…). But in neither case does the definition itself proclaim them to be divinely revealed.

      Reply
    • When a true Pope speaks infallibly , ex cathedra or when binding the whole Church to belief it must be already implied or a logical progression from divine revelation or the traditional teaching of the Church.

      Reply
    • Hi Lyle,

      Thanks for your questions.

      It’s not that these doctrines in category 2 cannot be divinely revealed. They could be. It’s just that they are not specifically said to be divinely revealed in the infallible definition itself.

      For examples, I think that Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994) is a very clear one: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

      Another one is from Pope Leo XIII in 1896: “Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”

      In the JPII example, there’s probably a good case to be made that the doctrine is in fact revealed. But in the Leo XIII case it’s pretty clear that the doctrine is not revealed (since Christ and the Apostles said nothing about Anglican orders). But in neither case does the definition itself proclaim them to be divinely revealed.

      Reply
      • Dr Joy, thanks for the response. Do I read you correctly as saying that those who dissent from this class of infallible teaching, eg by asserting Anglican orders to be valid, are nevertheless not heretics?

        Reply
        • That’s right. Heresy is only the rejection of divinely revealed truth. To assert that Anglican orders are valid would be a theological error and it would be sinful since it disregards infallible teaching. But not heresy.

          Reply
  3. A quote from Walford reads:

    “Pope Francis cannot possibly be in error in his ordinary magisterium concerning issues of faith and morals, and thus to his teaching that under certain, carefully considered cases, Holy Communion can be given to persons in irregular situations.”

    The problem as I see it is that sentence begs so many questions: What exactly does that teach? ,What are the
    ‘carefully considered cases’? Living as brother and sister? (No mention of that in AL in that the teaching in Familiaris Consortio is not given in full). What is meant by ‘irregular situations’? What is the state of the soul of such persons? Are they in deliberate and unrepentant mortal sin or not? Or have they confessed with a firm purpose of amendment?

    How such a vague statement can be considered to be teaching escapes me. It let so may cats out of so many bags that it is quite right that people should ask for clarification of a passage that arises merely in a footnote.

    Reply
  4. Walford’s citation of the Council of Lyons seems to support the Four Cardinals of the Dubia and seems to cast a cloud over the the Holy Father’s refusal to respond:

    “the Pope: ‘has the duty to defend the truth of the faith, and it is his responsibility to resolve all disputed matters in the area of faith’.

    According to Lyons, then, the Holy Father seems not to be doing what popes have the duty to do: “to resolve all disputed matters in the area of faith.” So the questions remain whether statements in AL contradict the infallible teachings of the Magisterium. If they do they cannot be expressions of the authentic magisterium. That’s what the dubia are all about and that’s the question the pope seems to want to avoid answering.

    Reply
  5. Ooops…what is this about the “ordinary Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world which is infalllible” ? I don’t think so…Vat II made some reference to bishops speaking infallibly when teaching infallible statements of the Pope …nothing more than that.

    Reply
    • Up until Vatican II as Dr. Joy pointed out in Part I of this post, what was meant by the”ordinary Magisterium” … ( “ordinary” referring to all the bishop of a diocese)…was that the bishops in union with the pope were teaching infallibly in their dioceses in matters of faith and morals on matters to be held by all the faithful. The Pope in turn was teaching infallibly on matters which declared “ex cathedra” and on matters that belonged to the constant teaching of the Church on Faith and morals (referred to as ordinary magisterium .
      The confusion seems to have crept in when some dissenters did not want to accept the Church’s constant teaching on Faith and morals, so denied the infallibility of anything that was not an ex cathedra pronouncement..in other words they denied the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.
      This I believe is the true way of expressing the way that infallibility operates through the Holy Spirit in the Church.
      Bishops conferences were developed rather recently in Church history, and have no magisterial weight in themselves as a group or any authentic authority to interfere with a bishop who is teaching the constant teaching of the Church ( infallible) in his diocese. Otherwise the Church authority would be restructured from the way Christ founded the Church . The confusion seems to constantly become more and more confusing due to dissenters in the Church from her constant infallible teaching on matters of Faith and morals, and their intent to ‘officially change’ what they find too difficult to accept.

      Reply
      • The author states that the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Pope is not infallible but is certainly guided in a special way because of the authority he holds as supreme pontif etc. but then goes on to write that the

        Reply
        • ” It sounds as if the ordinary magisterial teaching of the pope is not infallible but the ordinary magisterial teaching of the bishops is infallible.”

          Yes, I recall that Dr. Joy made the same comment. This is part of the confusion which was started by those who did not want to accept the constant teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals to be held by all the faithful as being infallibly taught by the pope, bishops throughout the world in union with him. Examples of these teachings are the condemnation of contraception and homosexual acts. These people would make statements like, ” Only ex cathedra pronouncements are infallible, and everything else is up for grabs “.

          A good book explaining infallibility and a history of it’s understanding in the Church is: “The Gift of Infallibility ” by the late Msgr. James T. O’Connor former professor of Dogmatic Theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary for the Archdiocese of New York and teacher, I believe, of Fr. Frank Pavone, founder/director of Priests for Life.

          Reply
          • I second the recommendation of “The Gift of Infallibility” by Msgr. O’Connor. It is actually a translation of the official explanation of the meaning of the definition of papal infallibility given by Bishop Gasser to the fathers of the First Vatican Council on the floor of the conciliar hall and is thus far and away one of the most important sources for a right interpretation of the nature and scope of papal infallibility.

          • Msgr. O’Connor was an amazing teacher who also taught in the Diocesan Master’s Program for laymen. He stressed the importance of his footnotes, and his books contained tons of them. Much to our dismay we were also tested on his footnotes….this calls to mind the famous Papal footnote in Amoris Laetitsia presently under discussion which I believe needs to be studied seriously.

        • To say that the ordinary magisterium of the pope is not infallible but that the ordinary magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world is infallible (which is what I said) can easily look like a huge error until one has grasped the ambiguity of the term ‘ordinary magisterium’, which is what I tried to explain in the first part of this essay. In the context of infallible teaching, ‘ordinary magisterium’ JUST MEANS ‘infallible teaching found outside of magisterial documents’, and this is attributed to the bishops dispersed throughout the world since it is more a matter of general supervision than of formal documented teaching. But in the context of formal documented teaching, ‘ordinary magisterium’ JUST MEANS ‘non-infallible magisterium.’ But there is no real inequality between the infallibility of the pope and of the bishops. If the bishops dispersed throughout the world propose a doctrine as definitively to be held, then this is infallible in virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium; if the pope proposes a doctrine as definitively to be held, this is also infallible, but we call is the extraordinary magisterium. The apparent inequality is pure semantic.

          Reply
    • Check out Pius IX, Tuas libenter; Vatican I, Dei Filius, cap. 3; and Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 25, where it speaks of the infallibility of the bishops dispersed throughout the world, and then look up the footnote references on that text. It is absolutely the case that the ordinary magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world is infallible when proposing a doctrine as divinely revealed or definitively to be held. Of course the college of bishops dispersed throughout the world includes the pope.

      Reply
        • Correct me if I’m wrong Dr Joy, but it seems to me the Pope can participate in the infallible Ordinary Magisterium (of Bishops throughout the world) as one of those Bishops – just not exercise the infallible Ordinary Magisterium in his own right.

          Reply
  6. And, to thicken the plot:

    According to Rorate Caeli, Mueller has just been dismissed as head of the CDF. What a wonderful way to begin Fourth of July weekend here in the States. (sarcasm off)

    Reply
  7. Stephen Walford, in his metatheoretical tirade, happily overlooks the fact that AL is in contradiction (let’s repeat: contradiction) with the words of our Lord and the teaching of the previous magisterium. If each Pope “cannot possibly be in error in his ordinary magisterium concerning issues of faith and morals” I have a hard time reconciling the teachings of Francis and that of JPII and former Popes and Councils – based on the command of Jesus, which goes completely (and unbelievably) missing from AL.
    It’s really awesome how liberal Christians – after decades of open dissent and theorizing about parallel doctrines – are now embracing the most extreme forms of Papal infallibility.

    Reply
  8. I love how Pope Francis has since caused all these “traditional”-, “conservative”-minded people to scurry off to Amazon to purchase books on the Magisterium — used and cheap, I hope — by that old dissenter, Fr. Francis Sullivan!

    Before, when it was Pope St. John Paul II or Benedict XVI, nothing could come from Rome that wasn’t gold . . . GOLD, I tells ya! But, now under Pope Francis the “Traddy-Cons” have suddenly discovered the levels and gradations of the Magisterium: of the difference between a CDF “Note” and a Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation.

    Charlie Curran, I’d like you to meet Fr. John Zuhlsdorf!

    Reply
  9. When the issue is novel, hard to square with scripture and the long term teaching of the Church, casually promulgated and so abstruse that a layman can’t understand it, if at all, without lengthy and hyper sophisticated interpretation by experts – many of them disagreeing themselves – reservation seems justifiable. It is time for answers to the dubia

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...