Talk:Magisterium

message: Expanded the article and clarified several points with quotes from Vatican II. --Ronconte 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes are excellent.  I made one minor addition. Lawrence King 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Still a dispute? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Over and out 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, Jhobson1. TechsysPete (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fallible to non-infallible 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  His Dark Materials 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Levels of Magisterium 

message: ===Pastoral Council===
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)
thread_title: Notes section

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Pastoral Council]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Counter-Magisterium

message: 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)
thread_title: Ecclesia docens and Ecclesia discens

message: 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.  ADM (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion of Episcopal authority and Magisterial authority

message: 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)
thread_title: Distinction between Authentic Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium

message: 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)
thread_title: Historicism vs. Actualism

message: 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.  ADM (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship between Church and Science

message: 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)
thread_title: John XXII rejected papal infallibility?

message: ===Paraphrase the Inline Quotations===
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)
thread_title: Suggestions for Improving Clarity

message: 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)
thread_title: Paraphrase the Inline Quotations

message: 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)
thread_title:  "In communion with the correct and true teachings of the faith"