Talk:Magisterium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, I must have missed it. What, specifically, is being disputed? Name it or the tag should be withdrawn. TMLutas 07:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

Levels of the Magisterium citation - This is from page 201 of Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine by Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr. Peter Joseph ISBN 1-901157-14-8, Saint Austin Press 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markanthony1980 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The information in the table can also be derived from the Code of Canon Law. As to Infallibility, the infallibility is only for councils, not ordinary (no pun intended) magisterial proclamations. Wfh 10:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

After reviewing the problem I've concluded that the issue is not whether the Traditionalists are right/deserve a voice in the article, but whether some of their dissension has influenced the wording of this article. If Traditionalist, anti-Vatican II, or Protestant ideas have biased the article, then something should be done about it, but I don't have the knowledge of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to make that decision, or to make corrections if there are such errors here. I won't delete the factual dispute tag, then, but will someone in the know please review this article for factual correctness? Preferably someone Catholic? TechsysPete (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since there hasn't been any new contribution to this discussion for five months, I'm removing the tag. --Dampinograaf (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Yes, this is ought to be added to the article, or a separate article should be created as at the moment the HDM articles link here. --Robhu (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's what I was searching for when I got here, something should be done about this. NeoRicen (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think, perhaps, a section titled "Popular Culture" should be created to discuss this. Mnmazur (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have added this section with an expand tag: having yet to read the books, I am quite ignorant on the Magisterium. Please expand it! Thanks, Mnmazur (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

What matters more than the source of the teaching is the level of teaching. Sullivan's Magisterium says on page 61:

"However, when Lumen gentium says that such definitions must be adhered to 'with the submission of fatih', it does not specify 'divine faith'. The reason given by the Theological Commission involves its intention not to exclude the possibility that a council might define a truth which is not strictly revealed, but is required for the defence or explanation of revealed truth'."

Thus, the definitions of an ecumenical council may require a full assent of faith (for revealed truths), or they may require only a submission of faith (for truths not strictly revealed), depending on the nature of the definition. Any suggestions on how to revise the table to incorporate this distinction? -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Then revise the table to reflect this distinction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I request that somebody clarify the distinction between "Religious submission of intellect and will" and "Full Assent of Faith." I just came accross this page and found myself very confused by this distinction about which I know nothing. If there is an article which explains that distinction, a link should be added.

Also, I feel that the table should be reversed. The Pope ex cathedra is obviously at the top of the hierarchy and as such, it seems like it would be clearer (visually) to put that entry at the top of the table. I am going to go ahead and make that change since it is mostly cosmetic but if someone feels like reversing, I will not be offended. PrometheeFeu 67.170.184.197 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article should maybe explain the notion of pastoral council and how it relates to the magisterium. Accordingly, some theologians have down-played some of the doctrinal content of Vatican II because it was declared to be merely a pastoral council and never tried to teach or clarify any particular dogma or doctrine. ADM (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article could also mention the idea of counter-Magisterium, when dissenting intellectuals create their own theological circles or media and begin an opposing teaching office in the Church. Some have for instance in favour of a Magisterium of theologians and a Magisterium of the laity, although these are at best semi-Magisteriums, meaning that they are never complete without coherent concertation with the living Church and with the entire Corpus Mysticum. ADM (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another topic that might be discussed within the Magisterium article (or maybe within a stub) is the ancient distinction between Ecclesia docens and Ecclesia discens, that is, the Church that teaches and the Church that learns. It is a fairly ancient term and it seems that several modern theologians do not or cannot agree with this ecclesiastic principle. ADM (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The point that the article Neo-ultramontanism is making, rightly or wrongly, is that some people tend to confuse Episcopal authority with Magisterial authority. Now, the Pope is a bishop like any other, and ought to be treated with the respect and obedience due to all bishops, much like youth are held to respect their fathers and forefathers. Likewise, certain bishops in the past had received the secular title of prince because of particular historical circumstances which were not always connected to any teaching authority.

This said, no typical bishop can ever make an infallible statement, except when he is the titular of the Holy See of Rome, and if and only if he is making a definitive dogmatic declaration on matters of divine revelation. Every bishop does however have his own non-Infallible ordinary and authentic Magisterium, and it is very much acceptable to speak of a Magisterium of bishops, such as described by Christus Dominus at Vatican II.

Such infallible statement include the pronoucements on the dogmata of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Now, some matters of ecclesiastic discipline are also considered to be almost semi-infallible because they are paramount to the sacred constitution of the Church, such as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Apostolicae Curae.

Another issue related to this is that many SSPX-ers put Quanta Cura on the same Magisterial level as Apostolicae Curae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, something which has not been recognized by the Holy See. [1] ADM (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Still another issue which would need to be cleared up is the proper distinction between Authentic Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium. I was reading a fairly recent information piece saying that about 35 % of all Cardinals had signed a petition requesting the proclamation of the dogma of Mary Co-Redemptrix. The proposed dogma has not been proclaimed yet, but if it ever does reach the Chair of Peter, it would nevertheless be a perfect example on how a non-Ordinary and non-Extraordinary Magisterium, coming from the Sacred Roman College, can also be an Authentic Magisterium. ADM (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article seems to exhibit a peculiar form of historicism, which is a POV of sorts. Although the Magisterium is in fact very ancient, and goes doctrinally all the way back to the teaching of Jesus and the Twelves Apostles, it is important to remember that the Magisterium is very Immanent, in that it is part of the entire Church today, yesterday and tomorrow. Therefore, it is at least as actual as it is historic, and should not be treated as purely historical or purely actual, in that both of these philosophical aspects ought to be treated in a fair and correct manner (cf living magisterium). ADM (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that the word Magisterium would be appropriate when talking about the scientific community, in this article, in other articles and in other writings and publications, because of the consensus approach within scientific circles that often mirrors that of closed communities (cf Consensus Patrum). I think that this was Paul Feyerabend's fundamental epistemological criticism on the pretensions of modern science, namely that of constituting a scientific society by using the same kind of social control tools as that of religion. Feyerabend compares Science to a Church or Community and cynically says that the only reason that there have been conflicts between Church and Science is because both of them are structured like Churches. [2] ADM (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article says that John XXII rejected papal infallibility. This is a seriously vague claim with no sourcing. He did of course have the beatific vision controversy. That's a long shot from denying papal infallibility. I think it should be deleted. 75.141.112.212 (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest paraphrasing the inline quotations in a manner that is more accessible and "easy-to-read" for the layperson unfamiliar with this topic (moving the quotations themselves to the footnote section). Being such a layperson, I fear I would do more harm than good if I attempted this myself, but I think this article would benefit from a greater focus on clearly and gently explaining this subject. (In particular, the scope of, and distinction between, papal/Church infallibility is a fascinating topic that I'm finding difficult to understand as it's presently written.) Eunomiac (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

A sentence in the first paragraph says:

That authority is vested uniquely in the Pope and the bishops[3], under the premise that they are in communion with the correct and true teachings of the faith.

The first half of this sentence states a simple fact that accurately restates the cited source.

The second half about the "premise" or basis for the doctrine of the magisterium of the Church is questionable.

• First, what does it mean for people to be "in communion with" teachings? The word communion has both a general English meaning and a specific Catholic theological meaning, neither of which makes sense here. One can be "in communion with" others, but not with things such as objects or ideas.

• Second, given that magisterium is teaching authority, it makes no sense to say that the pope and bishops have been given the authority to define the Church's teachings because they know the Church's teachings. This statement is not merely an over-simplification. It is actually contradictory to the complex history of how this authority came to be vested as described in the rest of this article.

• Third, no source is cited for this claim. As written, it makes no sense. But even if it were rewritten in a way that made sense, it would need to be supported by a reference to an authoritative source--or at least be an accurate summary of sourced information cited later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:E03:EBC0:F50D:46C1:DA14:C367 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply