I though it kinda did (even though I obviously don’t believe in it) but it seems it doesn’t actually make sense to people who have actually studied it Here’s a video I watched, where two expert RC theologians, one of them a scholarly expert on the topic of the ‘magisterium’ itself They can’t make heads or tails of what the Magisterium is, or what goes into it..... discussion welcome
A 1.5 hour video discussion of RC doctrine, hmm. Can you give us the "cliff notes" or "hornbook" version? "Magisterium for Dummies?"
I mean the 1.5 hours of it is kinda like a testimony in itself, to how convoluted and ultimately incomprehensible their doctrine of the Magisterium really is... They begin with a few basic formulations of the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Magisteriums, but the discussuion quickly spirals out of control, as how the RC church defines them today is somehow diametrically opposite of how they were defined in those original formulations ... And how basically nobody even knows what falls inside either the ordinary or the extraordinary magisteriums; At some point I realized this was a senseless doctrine, and wanted to see if others here understood it better than our 2 deluded RC brothers in the video
Magisterium is primarily a way for certain RCs to say "the Church teaches..." and then give a nice large dose of private opinion, in much the same way as you'll hear an Orthodox say "the Fathers teach..." or a Baptist say "the Bible teaches..." and then do the exact same thing.
Admittedly all sources of knowledge, secular or divine, are complicated. And in divine things, whether your source for divine knowledge is based in the magisterium, on scripture, or on tradition, that source will be bound to have its critics, and give you challenges. At least Scripture is itself divine, holy writ, and thus worthy of at least being considered as a foundation for all divine knowledge. On the other hand the magisterium is a manufactured concept which was only formulated in the 1850s, at the earliest. It's not the same as the more traditional notion of 'the teaching church' (ecclesia docens). There was literally a guy in the 1850s (Josef Kleutgen) who came up with the magisterium, and the Popes quickly incorporated it into their future teachings. Today, any new incoming convert is told that 'The Church has always had the concept of the magisterium, for 2000 years, and it was established by Christ.'
That's pretty wild! Never heard that before. Can you provide any evidentiary citations for this statement about Kleutgen coming up with the concept? I'm wondering if there's enough evidence to make a RC actually stop and think about it.
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/70/2/916/5540934?redirectedFrom=fulltext “On the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium from Joseph Kleutgen to the Second Vatican Council.” By John Joy. “The author begins with the nineteenth-century Jesuit theologian Joseph Kleutgen, who invented the terms ‘ordinary magisterium’ and ‘extraordinary magisterium’. He then examines the use of these terms in Pius IX’s letter Tuas libenter and the documents of the First Vatican Council, sets forth the further use of these concepts by the French theologian J. Vacant and Pius XII’s encyclical Humani generis, and concludes with an exposition of the discussions of ordinary and extraordinary magisterium at the Second Vatican...” I note that all this is absent from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kleutgen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium So this mystery continues to be carefully guarded.
Well, thanks, but it certainly isn't cheap to access that article! (edit) - I think I've found a free download at academia.edu !