infallibility

[MarysLittleFlower]

There was a discussion about this but it was off topic for the thread so I thought I'd start a thread. This is not a debate thread but to clarify points about infallibility. One thing I wanted to check is, are encyclicals infallible? Or rather - do they share in infallibility the way Universal ordinary Magisterium can share. Is that only when they define something? What about the new encyclical on the environment issues? 

I'm confused about these two views and which is correct. This one: http://www.beginningcatholic.com/infallibility.html. or this one: 

http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Or are they saying the same thing? It seems that - universal ordinary Magisterium only shares in infallibility in certain conditions. There seem to be 3 ways the Church is infallible: ex cathedra statements from the Pope, pronouncements in Ecumenical Councils that are on faith and morals, and the acts of the universal ordinary Magisterium. Is it true that the *Ordinary* Magisterium is not infallible in other cases?? Maybe its a confusion of language... Because the first link seems to say ordinary Magisterium shares in infallibility, the second one says the name for that is universal ordinary Magisterium, and says the ordinary Magisterium is not infallible. More on.that here: http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm. so which view is correct? We all agree the extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. What is the case with the Ordinary Magisterium? Is there something else called Universal Ordinary Magisterium - perhaps the first link is talking about that and its just a confusion of terms?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

One has to be correct and the other wrong, if they have opposing views.  This i know. I will read your links now.

The first link is the one i bought to the front that actually says " certain teachings" and not all.

I think both documents are correct, neither say the magesterium is completely infallible.

I had the feeling i was correct and these documents proove it. There are only 3 conditions where the magesterium is infallible and these are not always exercised, though of course as it says flat out refusal to respect the teachings of the ordinary magesterium is heretical even though she is not infallible she is nihil obstat..

And i see here it does use the word universal ordinary magesterium. Where are the cannon lawyers when you need em'. lol.

A teaching falls under the Universal Magisterium (i.e. the ordinary universal Magisterium) when the Bishops of the Church “…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.” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25)

All other teachings of the Magisterium, other than those that fall under one of the three modes of infallibility, are, without exception, ordinary and non-infallible, and are subject to the possibility of error, even on matters of faith and morals, but never to such an extent that any error, or set of errors, could lead the faithful away from the path of salvation.

As is usually the case with heresy, the heresy in question takes a number of different forms, with different persons, holding the same basic view, giving different explanations, each of which results in what is essentially the same claim: that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. All such claims present the Ordinary Magisterium as if it were without the possibility of error.

 

So according to this document if you believe the ordinary magesterium is infallible than you are a heretic. I am correct.
 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I need not cut and paste anymore from this document. It says it all right there. And i shouldn't say i am correct, that is arrogant and ambiguous, i should say more to the truth, that i am glad and thank our LORD Jesus for granting Marys little flower the grace to dig this up. ALLELUIA!

[Nihil Obstat]

Mutual relations of the organs of infallibility

A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:

• the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
• ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
• the pope himself separately.

Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i.e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by themagisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.

Even the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and centre of Christ's mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morallyunanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises. And as the pope's supremacy is also an essential factor in the constitution of an ecumenical council — and has in fact been the formal and determining factor in deciding the ecumenicity of those very councils whose authority is recognized by Eastern schismatics and Anglicans — it naturally occurs to enquire how conciliar infallibility is related to papal. Now this relation, in the Catholicview, may be explained briefly as follows:

• Theories of conciliar and of papal infallibility do not logically stand or fall together, since in the Catholic view the co-operation and confirmation of the pope in his purely primatial capacity are necessary, according to the Divine constitution of the Church, for the ecumenicity and infallibility of a council. This has, de facto, been the formal test of ecumenicity; and it would be necessary even in the hypothesis that the pope himself were fallible. An infallible organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly although neither taken separately is infallible. Hence the pope teaching ex cathedraand an ecumenical council subject to the approbation of the pope as its head are distinct organs of infallibility.
• Hence, also, the Gallican contention is excluded, that an ecumenical council is superior, either in jurisdiction or in doctrinal authority, to a certainly legitimatepope, and that one may appeal from the latter to the former. Nor is this conclusion contradicted by the fact that, for the purpose of putting an end to theGreat Western Schism and securing a certainly legitimate pope, the Council of Constance deposed John XXIII, whose election was considered doubtful, the other probably legitimate claimant, Gregory XII, having resigned. This was what might be described as an extra-constitutional crisis; and, as the Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputable, even an acephalous council, supported by the body of bishops throughout the world, was competent to meet this altogether exceptional emergency without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule, as the Gallicans wrongly imagined.
• A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.

[Credo in Deum]

If posters are going to document dump, please make sure you copy and paste the documents in a way which is compatible with this site. 

 

Thank you.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

unsure how to do that, please explain?

 

Mutual relations of the organs of infallibility

A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:

• the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
• ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
• the pope himself separately.

Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i.e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by themagisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.

Even the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and centre of Christ's mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morallyunanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises. And as the pope's supremacy is also an essential factor in the constitution of an ecumenical council — and has in fact been the formal and determining factor in deciding the ecumenicity of those very councils whose authority is recognized by Eastern schismatics and Anglicans — it naturally occurs to enquire how conciliar infallibility is related to papal. Now this relation, in the Catholicview, may be explained briefly as follows:

• Theories of conciliar and of papal infallibility do not logically stand or fall together, since in the Catholic view the co-operation and confirmation of the pope in his purely primatial capacity are necessary, according to the Divine constitution of the Church, for the ecumenicity and infallibility of a council. This has, de facto, been the formal test of ecumenicity; and it would be necessary even in the hypothesis that the pope himself were fallible. An infallible organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly although neither taken separately is infallible. Hence the pope teaching ex cathedraand an ecumenical council subject to the approbation of the pope as its head are distinct organs of infallibility.
• Hence, also, the Gallican contention is excluded, that an ecumenical council is superior, either in jurisdiction or in doctrinal authority, to a certainly legitimatepope, and that one may appeal from the latter to the former. Nor is this conclusion contradicted by the fact that, for the purpose of putting an end to theGreat Western Schism and securing a certainly legitimate pope, the Council of Constance deposed John XXIII, whose election was considered doubtful, the other probably legitimate claimant, Gregory XII, having resigned. This was what might be described as an extra-constitutional crisis; and, as the Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputable, even an acephalous council, supported by the body of bishops throughout the world, was competent to meet this altogether exceptional emergency without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule, as the Gallicans wrongly imagined.
• A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.

Did you even read both the documents presented by marys little flower nihil ? And by the way i'm the best selection for the next lay pope if there are no worthy candidates from the magesterium.  J/k lol. Who knows, teach me some theology and it may be so. And also nihil do you have a degree in theology?

Edited July 30, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Credo in Deum]

unsure how to do that, please explain?

The best way to ensure what you paste will be compatible with this site, is to copy only the text from the site you're getting your information from.  If what you're highlighting to copy on the other site includes pictures next to the text or around the text, then it will, more often than not, come out all distorted when you paste the material on this site.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I just cut and copied, there where no pictures involved credo.

One of The documents presented by marys little flower clearly states that belief that the ordinary magesterium is infallible is most definitely a heresy.

I have to go to bed anyhow. May the Lord from which all things good come from bless you all with peace and goodwill. God bless.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[MarysLittleFlower]

Look Tab - if the Magisterium makes infallible statements EVER then we can say its infallible. We just clarify when. Please look at what Nihil posted for the info on when its fallible or not.. Because the things I posted were to ask a question and I'm unclear what is accurate there and what isn't - will figure that out later

No one is saying there are no conditions for infallibility! That is not what we mean!

[Nihil Obstat]

The question has never been whether or not everything the Magisterium says is infallible. Obviously it is not. That is ridiculous. The question, and the thesis which you deny Tab, is whether or not the Magisterium as an entity is infallible. And it clearly is according to Catholic teaching.

The Magisterium, qua Magisterial authority. Is absolutely infallible if and when it deigns to exercise that authority.

[MarysLittleFlower]

It may be that Tab thinks that in saying its infallible we are implying its infallible without conditions, but he would have to clarify... Of course we are saying its infallible with conditions. But since it can make infallible statements - its infallible. 

[Nihil Obstat]

 

It may be that Tab thinks that in saying its infallible we are implying its infallible without conditions, but he would have to clarify... Of course we are saying its infallible with conditions. But since it can make infallible statements - its infallible. 

Yes, and we have clarified that several times in the last two weeks, but he seems intent on ignoring that point and insisting on his own false interpretation.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The question has never been whether or not everything the Magisterium says is infallible. Obviously it is not. That is ridiculous. The question, and the thesis which you deny Tab, is whether or not the Magisterium as an entity is infallible. And it clearly is according to Catholic teaching.

The Magisterium, qua Magisterial authority. Is absolutely infallible if and when it deigns to exercise that authority.

finally you concede and say if and when she deigns to exercise such authority. I have never said the magesterium can't exercise such authority.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

finally you concede and say if and when she deigns to exercise such authority. I have never said the magesterium can't exercise such authority.

You have said several times "the Magisterium is not infallible." This is false, and rank heresy.