FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Acta Apostolicae Sedis
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
This is a short question: is any document or allocution (etc) that is placed into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis to be regarded as part of magisterial teaching?
It's the official journal of the acts of the Holy See, so yes, according to each documents' particular authority. Obviously not every act in the AAS is of equal weight.
(08-28-2012, 01:11 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]It's the official journal of the acts of the Holy See, so yes, according to each documents' particular authority. Obviously not every act in the AAS is of equal weight.

If this is the case I find it hard to see how any Catholic (as so many neoconservative Catholics do) can maintain that magisterial teaching cannot contradict itself since much of what is magisterial teaching is not protected by the Church's charism of infallibility. It is clear from the inclusion of Ad totum ecclesiam in the AAS, which as Fr Thomas Crean OP points out, contradicts previous infallible magisterial teaching, that magisterial teaching can and does contradict itself at times.

It seems to me that this terrible crisis that the Church is going through is exacerbated through a profound confusion about what the "ordinary magisterium" is. It seems to me that this confusion stems from the expression "ordinary magisterium" being an equivocal (and not analogical) term. It can either refer to the infallibility of teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which are recognised by their being held and taught by a majority of Bishops and Popes diachronically, that is, throughout history. Or it can refer to the "authentic magisterium", that is, to the authority of those persons who make up the magisterium at any given time in history. By using the term "magisterium" or "ordinary magisterium" equivocally for both things - Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and the authentic magisterium - a confusion between infallibility and authority is engendered.

This is why it seems to me that many Catholics suffer from a kind of "magisterial positivism" whereby whatever is the latest statement from the Holy See is to be given an unqualified assent even though it clearly contradicts previous, infallible magisterial teaching. The very word "magisterium" tugs on the heart and demands unconditional obedience. But to submit our intellect and will unconditionally to anyone other than God is a species of idolatry. To give unqualified assent to the infallible teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium is not idolatry, however, since we are not thereby giving unconditional assent to the human persons who are merely the instruments of God's revelation but rather to God Revealing Himself.

I think the reason why this confusion has come about is that up until the 1960's the Church had mostly seen an unprecedented period of calm and relative orthodoxy (arguably since the Council of Trent) in which the distinction between the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and the authentic magisterium was blurred by the very orthodoxy (at least in their public magisterial acts) of the members of the magisterium. The very fact that the authentic magisterium took great pains to ensure that their teachings were in continuity with previous magisterial teachings made the difference between the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and the authority of the members of the magisterium unclear. It is only in times of crisis that the distinction between papal and episcopal office and truth becomes pronounced.
If something appears in the AAS, then you can say it is presented to the whole Church.  That is one piece of the infallibility requirement, but not all.  So everything in the AAS is not to be held as infallible.
(10-18-2012, 02:08 AM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]If something appears in the AAS, then you can say it is presented to the whole Church.  That is one piece of the infallibility requirement, but not all.  So everything in the AAS is not to be held as infallible.

No, but it is significant because it gives the lie to the assertion that magisterial teaching cannot contradict itself. Witness Ad totam ecclesiam (AAS 1967) and Mortalium Animos which contradict each other on the subject of communicatio in sacris.
(10-25-2012, 05:35 AM)Scotus Wrote: [ -> ]No, but it is significant because it gives the lie to the assertion that magisterial teaching cannot contradict itself. Witness Ad totam ecclesiam (AAS 1967) and Mortalium Animos which contradict each other on the subject of communicatio in sacris.

Are these disciplinary regulations, or moral teachings?
Scotus, good point.  It does.
(10-25-2012, 09:29 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-25-2012, 05:35 AM)Scotus Wrote: [ -> ]No, but it is significant because it gives the lie to the assertion that magisterial teaching cannot contradict itself. Witness Ad totam ecclesiam (AAS 1967) and Mortalium Animos which contradict each other on the subject of communicatio in sacris.

Are these disciplinary regulations, or moral teachings?

My best answer is to refer you to this article by Fr Thomas Crean OP, Praying With Non-Catholics — Is it Possible?. Fr Crean is not affiliated with any traditionalist organisations such as the SSPX, but he is well known for his book God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins.

In his article Fr Crean makes the point that the Church's perennial prohibition against praying with non-Catholics had always been understood to be a matter of divine law rather than merely of ecclesiastical discipline.  It's a matter of the First Commandment rather than just a reformable 'disciplinary regulation':
Fr Thomas Crean OP Wrote:It is important to notice that this prohibition is not presented by these theologians as an ecclesiastical ban. It is not the law of the Church which is traditionally understood to exclude Catholics from taking part in non-Catholic services; it is the divine law, which requires that outward acts of worship be expressive of inward faith.

Further, it is also clear that, strictly speaking, Unitatis Redintegratio did not contradict the perennial teaching of the Church:
Fr Thomas Crean OP Wrote:These considerations seem to show that the text of Unitatis Redintegratio contains nothing which contradicts the traditional teaching of theologians on communicatio in sacris. Whenever this practice is commended by the conciliar document, it is never explicitly said that it is active participation by a Catholic in non-Catholic services which is in question. Such may have been the ‘mood’ of the Council – but it is not the letter of the text.

However, Fr Crean goes on to state the Rubicon was crossed on the 14th of May 1967 with the publication of Ad totam ecclesiam by the Secretariat for the Promotion of the Unity of Christians:
Fr Thomas Crean OP Wrote:The second innovation of Ad Totam Ecclesiam, however, does contradict the traditional teaching of theologians on communicatio in sacris. The authors affirm that not only may a Catholic attend the services of an Orthodox community or of a Protestant one, he may also ‘take part in the common responses, hymns and actions’ of the community in question, ‘so long as they are not at variance with Catholic faith’.Pre-conciliar authors, as we have seen, would have considered this a manifestation of allegiance to a cultus which was heretical or at least objectively illegitimate, and as such a fault against the virtue of faith.

Now, since this document was given the explicit approval and confirmation of Pope Paul VI in an audience with the Secretary of the commission on the 28th of April 1967* and inserted in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis of that year this encouragement to Catholics to communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics can be quite correctly understood as a teaching of the authentic magisterium. The problem is that it is simply not compatible with the prohibition of the same as contained in the encyclical letter Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, etc. Indeed, "not compatible" in the sense of formally contradicting the earlier and more authoritative teaching.

But then there is nothing there to disturb our faith since it has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church that the magisterium as subject (aka the ecclesia docens, the "authentic magisterium", the "living magisterium", etc) is protected per se by the Holy Ghost from teaching error, but only within certain, clearly defined limits. To possess authority is not coterminous with being infallible. There are times in the history of the Church when contradictions between magisterial teachings are apparent (such as the teaching of the Council of Florence on the matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders that was corrected by Pius XII in Sacramentum ordinis or the opposition between Auctorem fidei and the GIRM 1970 on concelebration). But, thankfully, these occasions are relatively few.


*From the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1967:
Quote:Praesens Directorium Summus Pontifex Paulus Pp. VI in Audientia Secretariatu ad Christianorum unitatem fovendam, die 28 aprilis 1967 concessa, approbavit et auctoritate Sua confirmavit, et publici
iuris fieri iussit. Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.
That's how I have understood what communicatio in sacris is, but some argue the prohibition against it has not always been absolute. Is sharing sacraments on the same level as praying prayers, etc. of a rite? I would say that would be more grave (if that's ok than praying would be ok).  I posted this in another thread a while back.

The Papa Stronsay blog did a series on this topic a while back citing a bunch of Popes permitting communicatio in sacris. Thoughts?

Here is the Papa Stronsay blog's posts on this:

http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/10...enian.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/10...-same.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09...essed.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09...shoot.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/10...under.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09...erari.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09...acris.html
(10-28-2012, 11:57 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]That's how I have understood what communicatio in sacris is, but some argue the prohibition against it has not always been absolute. Is sharing sacraments on the same level as praying prayers, etc. of a rite? I would say that would be more grave (if that's ok than praying would be ok).  I posted this in another thread a while back.

The Papa Stronsay blog did a series on this topic a while back citing a bunch of Popes permitting communicatio in sacris. Thoughts?

Here is the Papa Stronsay blog's posts on this:

http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/10...enian.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/10...-same.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09...essed.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09...shoot.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/10...under.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09...erari.html
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09...acris.html

Ha! My parents are a mixed marriage!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6