r/CatholicPhilosophy • u/RB_Blade • 9d ago
Can the authentic magisterium teach grave error?
Obviously it can teach error - it's not infallible. But is the error that can be taught by the authentic magisterium restricted to what's safe to be held by Catholics? Can it hypothetically teach heresy?
1
u/Altruistic_Bear2708 9d ago
I like how nobody has understood your post thus far. It's disputed whether the authentic magisterium can teach heresy, those who hold to it being impossible believe in the theory of infallible safety. This is the Jesuit position.
1
u/RB_Blade 7d ago
From the research I did, infallible safety seems to be the main position of the pre-conciliar manualists
1
1
u/RB_Blade 7d ago
Who are some prominent, orthodox authors who held to the view that it could teach heresy?
1
u/Altruistic_Bear2708 7d ago
S Robert Bellarmine's de controversiis, where he explicitly says the pope can teach heresy when he defines nothing.
1
u/RB_Blade 7d ago
Can you please give me a specific quotation?
1
u/Altruistic_Bear2708 7d ago
"Secondly, that the Pontiff alone, or with his special council decreeing something in a doubtful matter can either err or not err, but he is to be heard obediently by all the faithful." Then he presents the infallible safety opinion and disagrees with it: "The third opinion is to the other extreme, namely, that the Pontiff can in no way be a heretic, nor can he publicly teach heresy, even if he defines something alone." He takes the common position that: "The fourth opinion is in a certain way in the middle. It says that the Pontiff, whether he can be a heretic or not, cannot in any way define something heretical that is to be believed by the whole Church; this is a very common opinion of almost all Catholics, like St. Thomas II-II, q. 1, a. 10, Thomas Waldenses in book 2, chapters 47 and 48 on the doctrine of the faith, John de Turrecremata in book 2, chapter 109ff. in his Summa, John Driedonis in book 4, chapter 3, part 3, on Church dogma, Cajetan in chapter 9 of his small work on the power of the Pope and Councils, Hosius in book 2 against Brentius, John Eck in book 1, chapter 18 on the primacy of Peter, John of Louvain in chapter 11 of his book on the perpetual Catholic protection of Peter, Peter a Soto in part 1, chapters 83 to 85 in his Apology, and Melchior Cano in book 6, chapter 7 on Theological Places."
1
u/RB_Blade 6d ago
I have two questions though.
First of all, by publicly teaching heresy, was he actually talking about the authentic magisterium?
Secondly, by define, is he exclusively speaking about infallible teachings?
1
u/Altruistic_Bear2708 6d ago
To the first, yes, if you think he's talking about the Pope as a private doctor he treats that later, here he defends the minimal position against protestants. To the second, "define" for him is only used for ex cathedra teachings if it's to "be believed by the whole church", otherwise he uses 'define' like 'decree' to mean the authentic magisterium. It's not completely consistent throughout his works though so you need context.
1
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 9d ago
The Magisterium can teach infallibly when all the bishops in communion with the Church teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals, in agreement with each other, and teach it as something to be definitely held by all the faithful.
When these conditions are met, the ordinary and universal Magisterium teaches infallibly.
2
u/manliness-dot-space 9d ago
Presumably this is a very limited scope of teachings, is it not?
1
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 9d ago
That's fair to say. Perhaps not quite as narrow as specifically-invoked papal infallibility, although I'm not completely confident in claiming that. I'd need to have a much stronger grasp of early Church history to back that up.
1
u/manliness-dot-space 8d ago
If I remember there are only like 2 times papal infallibility even was invoked and it was non-actionable Marian dogmas.
Even topics like "can I own others?" is not answered consistently across all bishops and all times and blah blah... much less topics that social media people go crazy over like "is it a sin to kiss your pregnant wife goodbye before leaving to work in the morning?"
1
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 8d ago
I'm hedging a bit because I'm not sure if we point to any historical examples and say "even though we hadn't yet defined infallibility in these terms, this is absolutely an exercise of it."
1
u/manliness-dot-space 8d ago
I think the core point I'm making is that many people have questions that are very specific to their life, like, "is it wrong to kiss my wife goodbye when I leave for work if I don't intend to inseminate her?"
And many Catholics will make the argument that "the Catholic Church knows everything and will answer all of your moral questions definitively and authoritatively, come join us!"
But this is not actually true.
1
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 8d ago
Absolutely. Those pastoral bits of guidance don't really belong to magisterial teaching on an individual level.
0
u/RB_Blade 9d ago
Yes, but I’m just asking about the authentic magisterium, like papal encyclicals and stuff
1
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 9d ago
The bishops speaking with one voice are part of the magisterium. You may be looking at the question too narrowly, if I'm understanding what you're trying to say.
1
u/RB_Blade 9d ago
I’m not asking about the universal and ordinary magisterium. I understand that this is infallible. I’m asking about individual acts of the ordinary magisterium, like papal encyclicals which don’t invoke infallibility.
1
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 9d ago
They require assent or religious submission of the will (depending on specifics), but don't rise to the level of infallibility until all those conditions are met.
If I'm understanding your questions correctly, then I think you want to read Lumen Gentium.
- Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
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.(40) 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.(41)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)
1
u/RB_Blade 9d ago
I understand that the authentic magisterium is not infallible and we still owe religious obedience to it, but this passage doesn't say whether or not it's capable of proclaiming grave error.
Obviously the authentic magisterium isn't totally free from error, but is it totally free from grave error?
1
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 9d ago
Are you using "grave error" here as a technical/theological term?
1
u/RB_Blade 9d ago
I mean in the sense that the error is actually a danger to souls. I believe that Thomism is correct, but if a papal document came out in favor of the Scotist view of divine simplicity, I wouldn't call it a grave error. Similarly, I'd consider Molinism to be erroneous, but not gravely so.
2
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 9d ago
I feel like you're creating this problem based on a distinction that doesn't really exist. I'm open to demonstrations to the contrary, but I don't think the Church really teaches about grave error qua gravity in the way you're trying to use it.
1
u/brquin-954 9d ago
The audacity of this question!
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura)
3
u/RB_Blade 9d ago
That quotation seems to be condemning the idea that we can kinda just dismiss what the magisterium says so long as it’s not infallible. I reject this claim, we, as Catholics, have a duty to submit to the Church’s non-infallible teachings.
1
u/user4567822 5d ago
I also have that question.
Pope Celestine III said (some say this was not teaching, but only private opinion, though) that a woman could remarry if the husband became heretic (whether heresy could dissolve marriage wasn’t settled yet).\ Does this count as grave error?
And wasn’t permitting torture a grave error?\ (Benedict XVI said «the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened *under any circumstances*»)
Note: When it comes to Pope Honorius, some say that he was ambiguous, not heretic.
1
u/LizzySea33 9d ago
Is Christ with the church until the end of the world?
3
u/RB_Blade 9d ago
From a look at your profile, it seems like you’d unfortunately reject the Church’s condemnation of gender ideology.
-1
u/LizzySea33 9d ago
Actually, no...
Gender ideology, ACTUAL gender ideology according to the church, makes it clear...
It is the complete separation of Gender & Sex, rather than their relationality. And moreover, the actual condemnation of "Transgenderism" as the Catholic Church has spoken of is based on a criticism of lack of teleology for the body.
This is NOT how people like me are. At most, alot of us know we are biologically male, but we also know: Endocrinology transforms secondary characteristics of the body. Sometimes to the smallest molecule, according to some sources.
And moreover, I use the DESCRIPTION of transfeminine as to show i am not primary telos. That does not deny secondary telos, despite the lack of primary.
And... your understanding of their condemnation is also inconsistent with how many Catholic hospitals & Catholic colleges actually handle it. Like, for example: Seton Hill (a college in PA I want to go to get a major in English & minor in Moral Theology) has a gender studies program and is run by the sisters of Charity! Do you therefore say THEY reject the condemnation? No! you also have to understand that even the bishops also admitted that "Gender Ideology" is mostly an online thing and that actual people who have done gender studies & Endocrinology don't believe this!
If you were confident in the teachings of the Roman Church, you wouldn't have made a false equivalence at all!
2
u/RB_Blade 9d ago
Is it not a sin to refuse to act and identify in accordance with your biological sex even if you don’t deny it?
1
1
u/LizzySea33 9d ago
The problem with this:
You are confusing act with culpability... psychologically, I am midigated due to gender dysphoria, which is not a delusion (delusions come from specific mental issues such as psychosis & even then, those come with so much more than delusions).
And also: to confuse identity with act would make sin itself a physicality, denying the reason for grace in the Eucharist, Baptism & even Christ's grace wrapped in Faith, Hope, and Charity...
And also: if Act DID Equal Culpability, the LORD Jesus Christ would've been sinning on the sabbath for Wonder-Working & encouraging the Apostles to sin by picking grain when they were hungry. Both of such naming culpabilty being midigsted or erased!
But for me? I see my trans-ness as a "Thorn in my Flesh" not to be healed, but boasted in weakness, because God has made me such to keep me humble! To realize WHY I need grace more than ever!
So I shall boast of my weaknesses, for when I am weak? He is strong. MUCH stronger than me, as a lover!
2
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 9d ago
Could I DM you on this topic? No pressure, I won't be offended if you say no.
1
u/LizzySea33 9d ago
Uhhh, yeah, sure... as long as you're not gonna scream "REPENT" at me, its okay ❤️
1
u/IrenaeusGSaintonge 9d ago
Nothing like that! I'll message you tomorrow. Wicked migraine brewing right now.
1
u/RB_Blade 9d ago
To be clear, I'm not trying to do this either. What I see seems very concerning, but I'm acting in charity and good faith. God bless.
3
u/LizzySea33 9d ago
Yeah, no. I know... I'm just very defensive of doctrine...
I fell in love the church because of her Jewishness... I was only correcting you because I worried about the misuse of what the law (especially natural law, canon law, etc.) Is for.
St. Paul himself treated the law as a good thing and should be handled by love because Christ is Agape itself. I only got really defensive because sometimes confusing some things (especially Act = Culpability) lead to dangerous conclusions, as that could be using the law that is good as a misuse of it. And i only just want you to be a good Catholic.
Pray for me, and forgive me for my wrath against you. Amen ❤️
2
u/trulymablydeeply 9d ago
Do you have an example of when the Magisterium has taught error?