Warning: Long Post - Infallibility I

And I’m shameless. Sorry the editor of this picture put "then" rather THAN "than."

I have to study AND I want to post. Anytime I couple caffeine with studying, I tune into a muse-esque station in my mind that screams for expression. So I figured, “let [my] powers combine.” The problem is my limited vocabulary and concentration get in the way. To help the situation, I have put in the Gladiator soundtrack to inspire me.

I am about to embark on foreign territory here and post on the Church’s social doctrine—or at least my assimilation of Dr. Lowery’s interpretation of it. Like some other posts, consider this Part I.

One of the greatest helps to me since I got to UD, was the correct understanding of infallibility. What does it mean for the Church to teach infallibly and what level of assent should I really give? The Magisterium can be divided eh-like-eh-zoh. Please eh note, two important things: the words define and teach (and/or their related forms) AND where the asterisks are.

Extraordinary Magisterium

***1. Extraordinary Papal Magisterium
(a) ex cathedra – the Pope defines dogma
i. Immaculate Conception – 1854 by Pius IX
ii. Assumption – 1950 by Pius XII

2. Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium
(a) Bishops gathered at ecumenical councils [including Vatican 2!!!]
***i. They can define dogma (i.e., Dogmatic Constitutions)
ii. They can also proclaim the Gospel and/or give pastoral directives

Ordinary Magisterium
1. Ordinary Papal Magisterium
(a) encyclicals and apostolic exhortations (teachings)

2. Ordinary Episcopal Magisterium
(a) Non-universal
i. Bishops gathered like at the United States Conference of Bishops
ii. Pastoral directives
(b) ***Universally
i. VERY TRICKY
ii. a universal a-temporally conditioned consensus of what the Church has agreed
upon (TAUGHT) as dealing with divine revelation and faith and morals.

Yeah, CS, but dumb it down for me.

Interesting distinction. An infallible definition does not mean that the Church does not teach other truths infallibly. Some of you might be thinking, yeah, so what? But this doesn’t mean that everything the Church teaches or defines is infallible either. This is where Newman’s insight is great. The Church’s teaching authority prioritizes truths for us

I think a lot of Catholics desire this; they are always looking to pull the “infallible teaching” trump card. But like in all things concerning the Church, freedom is key! More on that latte (oops, time for a refill.)

Some further distinctions. What is infallibly defined was also infallibly taught before the definition. Fundamentals of Catholicism 101 teaches us that the Church has to make definitions because of a crisis—something is unclear, debated, etc.—which needs further clarification. When there is a proper understanding, there is no real need for the Church to exercise the gift of infallibility.

The TRICKY part is trying to determine whether or not the Church has taught something as infallible. What complicates things is that any of the above forms of teaching (ecumenical councils, encyclicals, etc.) can contain truths that are taught infallibly, but the whole document itself is not infallible. Infallibility does NOT equal inspiration.

(((Could you just give us an example already???!!!)))

For example…

I hope we would all agree that the sanctity of human life, the evil of abortion, and the evil of euthanasia are all infallible truths. If not, let’s take a look at what JP2 (he’s so GREAT) says about the sanctity of life in Evangelium Vitae.

…the Church’s Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defense of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by the Episcopal Conferences or by individual bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed this matter forcefully, in a brief passage…[Emphasis mine].

The Pope draws our attention to the teaching of the Church—both the Ordinary Papal Magisterium and the non-universal Ordinary Episcopal Magisterium. Again, so what? Has the Church made any infallible definitions on the sanctity of human life? Note, both categories are not in the infallible definitions category.

Like I said, JP2 is so GREAT. He gives us the basis for a confirmation that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium *** has also taught the sanctity of human life as an infallible truth. In case you don’t believe me…

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors, and in communion with the bishops of the Catholic Church, I CONFIRM that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church, and TAUGHT by the ordinary and universal Magisterium [Emphas MINE again].

Like we used to say on the b-ball court in middle school after somebody made an awesome shot “in someone’s face”: BOO-Yah!

So how about the fallible matters?

Stay tuned...

the highly elusive blog title is "on the move":

Manikin and Manichean

-Shhhh

You say goodbye, I say hello

Another week of fascination with the intimate union of body and soul.

This didn't happen to me this week, but how many times has it happened when someone you know, someone you sort-of know, or someone you don't even know waves in your general direction? Your soul screams aloud, "YES!!! YES!!! (with every side-to-side motion), somebody is acknowledging my existence!" You wave back. And then it happens. 1.5 seconds later someone comes up from behind you, really he or she just comes out of nowhere, waving to the initiator of this whole exchange, and proceeds to hug and laugh the day along with the person you so most badly wished would desire to do the same with you.

But we don't acknowledge that. Instead we mumble to ourselves "uh...um" and then pretend to run our fingers through our hair in a "side-to-side" motion, pretending as if this in fact is what we were really doing the entire time. If that other person thought we were waving back at her, well really she's just as wrong as...as...as well, as wrong as we were.

Back to the tag: you say goodbye, I say hello.

Our bodies our not just instruments. My mind doesn't just tell my hand to move back and forth really fast, while simultaneously spreading my fingers apart. It just so happens that this historically conditioned culture that we live in has agreed upon the meaning of this gesture. Sometimes it means, "hello" and at other times "goodbye." Still sometimes it means--when coupled with a facial expression in the "oooh"-formation--"stop" or "no, no, no not right now."

What am I getting at? Body language of course. You all see it. Sometimes we don't always pick up what the other person is "saying"; everything somehow gets lost in translation. And somehow in the Providence of it all, the Lord uses this albeit sometimes clumsy way, to show us that we can't not communicate. Even if we use no words, our bodies at times betray us. How many times have I blushed (ok, ok so I've blushed before. Sheesh, get over it), or how many times have I tried not to cry and boom it hits (geez, would you get off that already? Yeah, so what?)?

The body is at the service of the soul and serves our humility, but also our need for communion. I'd be a wreck if there weren't people in my life that could "read" me despite my acting.

Ah! The unspoken blessings of body language.

-I don't know why [I] say goodbye...