This question is somewhat related to another question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97347/connections-between-gates-of-hell-and-heresies-from-a-catholic-standpoint In Fr. William Most's article [*Which Church Saves?*](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/which-church-saves-12280) he writes (**emphasis** mine): > But Jesus also said many things. For example: in Matt 18.17: "If he will not hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican." And Matthew 16.19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." **In the language of the time, to bind and loose meant to give authoritative teaching.** QUESTION: Can someone elaborate (perhaps with some references) on Fr. Most's conclusion: "In the language of the time, to bind and loose meant to give authoritative teaching" ? I am interested in the historical assimilation of *"bind and loose"* with *"teaching authority"* by the Catholic Church.

In his article [*The Magisterium, Biblical and Pastoral Aspects*](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/magisterium-biblical-and-pastoral-aspects-3773) , Fr. John F. Wealon writes: > I know of no wiser treatment than that of the German bishops in a pastoral letter of September 22, 1967. The pastoral says: "At this point we must soberly discuss a difficult question, which in the case of many Catholics today, much more than in the past, either menaces their faith or their spontaneous confidence in the doctrinal authority of the Church. We are thinking of the fact that in the exercise of its office, the doctrinal authority of the Church can be subject to error and has in fact erred. The Church has always known that something of the sort was possible. It has stated it in its theology and developed rules for such situations. This possibility of error does not affect doctrines which are proclaimed to be held with absolute assent, by a solemn definition of the Pope or of a General Council or by the ordinary magisterium. It is also historically wrong to affirm that errors of the Church have subsequently been discovered in such dogmas. This of course is not to deny that in the case of a dogma growth in understanding is always possible and always necessary, the original sense being maintained while previous possible misunderstandings are eliminated. And of course the problem in question must not be confused with the obvious fact that there is changeable human law in the Church as well as divine and unalterable law. Changes in such human law have nothing to do with error, but simply raise the question of the opportuneness of legal dispositions at different times. As regards error and the possibility of error in non-defined doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, where in fact the degree of obligation can vary very widely, we must begin by accepting soberly and resolutely the fact that the whole of our human life in general has also to be lived simply 'according to the best of our knowledge'. We have to follow our conscience according to our lights, which cannot be justified with absolute intellectual certainty but still remain here and now the valid norms to be respected in thought and action, because for the present there is nothing better. This is something which everyone knows from his own experience. It is a truth accepted by every doctor in his diagnosis and by every statesman in his judgment of a political situation and the decisions to be taken in view of it. The Church too, in its doctrine and practice, cannot always allow itself to be faced by the dilemma of either giving an absolutely binding doctrinal decision or simply remaining silent and leaving everything to the personal opinion of the individual. To safeguard the real substance of the faith, the Church must give doctrinal instructions, which have a certain degree of obligation but not being definitions of the faith, have a certain provisional character, even to the extent of possible error. This is a risk which must be taken, since otherwise the Church would find it quite impossible to preach its faith as the decisive reality of life, to expound it and to apply it to each new situation of man. In such a case, the situation of the individual with regard to the Church is somewhat like that of a man who knows that he is bound to accept the decision of an expert, even though he knows that this is not infallible. "There is no place, at any rate, in sermons and religious instruction for opinions contrary to such provisional doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, even though in certain circumstances the faithful should have the nature and the limited scope of such provisional pronouncements explained to them... The Christian who believes he has a right to his private opinion, that he already knows what the Church will only come to grasp later, must ask himself in sober self-criticism before God and his conscience, whether he has the necessary depth and breadth of theological expertise to allow his private theory and practice to depart from the present doctrine of the ecclesiastical authorities. The case is in principle admissible. But conceit and presumption will have to answer for their willfulness before the judgment-seat of God". Where may I find the 1967 pastoral letter of these "German bishops" from which the above was extracted? Is it available in English? If not, German O.K.

This post is somewhat related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97211/on-the-end-of-the-patristic-era-as-considered-by-the-catholic-church The First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church was the Council of Nicea in 325. Did any of the Fathers of the Church (say, from the Apostolic Fathers up to St. John Damascene in the 8th century) have anything to say about the authority of Ecumenical Councils? If so, what? Did any Church Fathers deny the authority of such councils?

As a generalization to the question posed in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62450/is-the-catholic-declaration-of-an-extra-biblical-saint-infallible , and in hope of obtaining, perhaps, more definitive answers from a Catholic perspective, I ask: Are Catholic canonizations infallible?

Regarding the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the U.S. Cardinal Burke said: > The *"magisterium"* is a somewhat recent theological term, and what it refers to is the duty of the Church to teach, safeguard and promote the truths of the faith as they’ve been handed down in the Tradition. So whether you say that it's magisterium or not, if it's not in agreement with what the Church has always taught and practiced, then it can’t be magisterium, even if you say that it is. It is my understanding that the term *Magisterium* refers to the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church. Could someone, perhaps, fill in some of the details as to what Cardinal Burke means by "a somewhat recent theological term"; i.e., when, where, and why was this term introduced to be used (as a substitute?) for the "Teaching Authority"? Should the former term be be preferred over the latter?

In the 1905 papal encyclical (Acerbo Nimis) of Pope St. Pius X, one finds, for example: > 19. I. On every Sunday and holy day, with no exception, throughout the year, all parish priests and in general all those having the care of souls, shall instruct the boys and girls, for the space of an hour from the text of the Catechism on those things they must believe and do in order to attain salvation. - [*Acerbo Nimis*](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_15041905_acerbo-nimis.html) QUESTION: Has *Acerbo Nimis* been revoked; or is it (as it would seem) largely being ignored? In general, are papal encyclicals always in effect unless otherwise specified or revoked? Thank you.

According to the Catholic Church, if a Catholic's own interpretation of scripture leads to a conclusion regarding what scripture says that the Catholic Church holds is heretical (for ex., denying Trinitarianism), and this Catholic publicly says so, but he also publicly holds that the Catholic Church's position is correct, due to the authority of the Magisterium (so, he concludes that his own reasoning regarding scripture must be mistaken, as plain as it may seem to him), is he a heretic?

According to the Catechism (CCC 100 ) > "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been > entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the > Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." What arguments does the Catholic Church use to support the idea that "the task of interpreting" has been entrusted **solely** to the Magisterium of the Pope and bishops in communion with him?

When writing [my answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90846/10672) to another question about the teaching authority of the NT writers (as Magisterium), I was wondering whether any author of the 27 books of the New Testament was *not* a bishop? We can exclude the anonymous author of the *Letter to the Hebrews*. We know that Peter John, Paul, James, Mark, and Jude were bishops. **How about St. Matthew and St. Luke; were they bishops as seen by the Catholic church?**

What is the relationship and/or opposition between Aquinas' writings and Magisterium? That is, what can generally be said about using Aquinas to explain doctrine? Or contrarily, does Aquinas stand in opposition to Magisterium such that his works cannot generally be used to explain or refine statements found in encyclicals? This question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50210/are-catholics-required-to-accept-every-article-of-aquinass-summa-theologica does NOT answer my question. That question is about whether all parts of the Summa must be accepted (which is not quite but similar to "are all parts of the Summa magisterial?"). The answer was determined to be no and while the answers include substantial information around Aquinas', it doesn't answer what weight Aquinas has in relation to magisterial statements. i.e. In what case if any is the argument "that's substituting Aquinas for the Magisterium" reasonable or correct?

## Question in Short ## In the Internet era, how does the Magisterium help both the faithful and the non-Catholic public to discern the authentic voice of the Catholic faith tradition? -------------- ## Background ## ### Before the Internet ### In the pre-Internet days much less information was available to the general public because of the inherent "filters" in place: - book / journals / magazine / newspaper channels need access to printing presses - radio and TV channels need to acquire frequency license from the local government - recorded audio and video tapes require a large capital to produce them - schools, conferences, seminars, etc. require "live" teachers / professors Teaching authorities like the Catholic Church Magisterium then could approve or censor either the material or the teacher through means such as [Imprimatur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur) , [Index of Prohibited books](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum) , [Permission to teach](http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/orsy4_4b.asp) which the public can then use to discern whether the views imparted through the teaching material or the person themselves represent accurately the view of the Catholic Church. ### Internet Era ### But now at the end of 2020, about 30 years into the Information Age, the general public can very easily find the **above 4 categories of teaching medium** just by Googling, either using a keyboard or by speaking to a virtual assistant ! Even traditional publishers also make available an alternate digital format through: - eBooks, PDFs, and Websites instead of printed materials - podcast, live streaming, Internet radio / TV, etc. - YouTube, Vimeo, Apple/Amazon/Google music/video, etc. - online courses/seminars/conferences, both recorded and live In addition, there are new interactive medium that never existed before: - social media - collaborative editing: wikipedia, stackexchange, reddit, etc. - forums - blogs - comments on traditional media such as book reviews, news articles, etc. ### Very informal history of how the Magisterium worked for 2,000 years ### To a layman the Magisterium seems to **spur into action by *reacting*** when there is a "clear and present danger" to the apostolic tradition that She has the duty to defend. Examples: - **In the pre-Constantine era**: since it is already quite hard to survive, each bishop quashed each heresy as it became serious, sometimes meeting with other bishops in a church council for a more serious heresy - **In Late Antique & Early Middle Ages**: more polished apologetics and more learned church scholars at a bishop's disposal to meet the challenge, such as [John Scottus Eriugena](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/76127/10672) - **In High Middle Ages**: Very established institutions and an "army" of theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas ready to spend years to deal with heresies, but the mode is still reactionary. - **Renaissance and Reformation**: the new printing press is used by both sides to produce propaganda pamphlets like today's Twitter war, followed by the usual church council like Trent - **Modern Pre-Internet**: (*described above*) - **Internet era**: this is my question: **does the Magisterium has a new way to preserve the integrity of the tradition**? -------------- ## Complete Question Statement ## The main problem of the Internet era today is that there is too much information, sometimes conflicting, forcing the reader to discern which information / person is more "Catholic" than the other. The problem is clearly different in nature than the pre-Internet modern era described above. Therefore, another way to state the question: **What is the Magisterium's 1) general strategy and 2) general character (i.e. is it still reactionary?) to deal with the Information Age in fulfilling Her duty to protect the faithful and the general public from misinformation of the Catholic Faith?** The questions below are sample concerns that should be addressed by the general strategy: 1. While waiting for an encyclical / church document to address an issue, is there a hierarchy of teachers that we can use for guidance? 1. [These speakers](https://catholicspeakers.com/profiles) are authorized by a particular diocese. When there is a gray area or where there are many answers about a topic like deutero-canon books, which one to choose? For example, this seems to be one of the best answers out there: [15 Myths, Mistakes, and Mispresentations about the Deuterocanon](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1202/2816/files/15-Myths-ebook.pdf) by [Gary Michuta](https://catholicspeakers.com/profiles/gary-michuta) , one of those speakers. **Is it safe to quote (at least in Wiki / C.SE) that's his ebook is the Catholic position for now**? 2. Some websites is more faithful than others, like the [Catholic Answers](https://www.catholic.com/) website, having their answers sometimes stamped with Nihil Obstat. 6. Some professing Catholic and well-published Thomist professor like [Ed Feser](http://www.edwardfeser.com/about.html) is self-disciplined to disclose when his opinion is at variance with the Magisterium. Otherwise, is he to be trusted? 3. How do bishops issue Nihil Obstat today? Is it still being done and applied to the new media? 4. Some Catholic apologists are more quoted by others. 5. Some Catholic books have prefaces by bishops, implying the book is safe to represent a Catholic position. 6. Does the Vatican / a Diocese still issue teaching license?

About the [International Theological Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Theological_Commission) : > The International Theological Commission (ITC) of the Catholic Church advises the Magisterium of the Church, particularly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), a dicastery of the Roman Curia. Its memberships consists of no more than 30 Catholic theologians appointed by the pope at the suggestion of the Prefect of the CDF for renewable five year terms. They tend to meet annually for a week in Rome, where the Commission is based. > > The Prefect of the CDF is *ex officio* the president of the ITC. [This Vatican.va page](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_index-members_en.html) lists the last members of the 2014-2019 (9th) Quinquennium (appointed July 2014) as well as the past members of the 8th to 1st Quinquennium (appointed May 1969). The last appointment (July 2014) was [reported by the Catholic News Agency](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/30565/roster-of-women-increases-on-vatican-theological-board) on Sep 24, 2014. On 29 November 2019, Pope Francis had an [audience with the members of the 9th Quinquennium ITC](http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/november/documents/papa-francesco_20191129_commissione-teologica.html) celebrating 50 years of ITC work with the following quote, indicating that a new Quinquennium would be appointed soon: > I am pleased to meet you and I thank your president, Cardinal Ladaria, for the words he addressed to me on your behalf. **You have reached the end of your ninth five-year period of work**, but above all to an important anniversary, the fiftieth anniversary of the Commission: fifty years of service to the Church. I congratulate you on this Jubilee, which allows you to make grateful memory of your history. In the preliminary note of the ITC document [The Reciprocity between Faith and Sacraments in the Sacramental Economy](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20200303_reciprocita-fede-sacramenti_en.html) produced by the 9th Quinquennium and released in December 2019, there was an indication that the term has been extended by 1 year. **My Question**: Who are the current members of the International Theological Commission for the 10th Quinquennium that Pope Francis should have appointed in 2019 / 2020?

I was shopping for a beer stein from the American Chesterton Society store (shameless plug or context, you tell me :) ) and I noticed a few books in one of the pictures advertising it. I found them on used [in this link](https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AThe+Benedictine+Monks+of+Solesmes&s=relevancerank&text=The+Benedictine+Monks+of+Solesmes&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1) They're called - Papal Teaching: The Holy Rosary - Papal Teachings: The Liturgy - Papal Teachings: The Lay Apostolate other works appear to be - Papal Teachings: The Human Body - Papal Teachings: Directives maybe a few others. Just wondering what is in those books. Lots of people come to this website asking for "What does the Church teach about X" and I can't offer them much more than a google site search of vatican.va. I'm guessing that's just barely scratching the surface. Are these an authentic representation of magisterial teaching on subjects that are go deeper than the Catechism?

[Lumen Gentium](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) 25 states in part: > 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 (*religioso animi obsequio* ). This religious submission of mind and will (*religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium* ) must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium (*authentico magisterio* ) 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. What does this "submission" amount to? Does that mean assuming the Pope is correct and not questioning that? How does it differ from the obligation towards infallible statements generally?

Lumen Gentium 25 states in part: >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 (*religioso animi obsequio* ). This religious submission of mind and will (*religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium* ) must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium (*authentico magisterio* ) of the Roman Pontiff What is the scope of the authentic magisterium of the Pope? How does this differ from the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church? Can the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff conflict with the general Magisterium (what has been taught previously)? Is the Roman Pontiff the specific current holder or the general office?

If I understand correctly, Cantate Domino is a papal bull by Pope Eugene IV which is in some way affiliated with the Council of Florence. I have heard it claimed that the writing of Cantate Domino was an instance of *papal infallibility*, but if I understand correctly, there are very few instances in which it is widely agreed that a pope spoke ex cathedra, and Cantate Domino is not one of them. That being said, the Council of Florence is an ecumenical council. My understanding is that some but not all aspects of ecumenical councils are infallible. Was the writing of Cantate Domino an instance of the *infallibility of ecumenical councils*? What is the precise relationship between Cantate Domino and the Council of Florence? If not, is Cantate Domino nevertheless a product of the (infallible) Sacred Magisterium? Or is it merely a product of the (fallible but authoritative) Ordinary Magisterium?

The Catholic Church teaches, as St. Thomas Aquinas explained, that God intended our first parents to give their descendants the blessings of original justice. When they lost the gifts, however, they could not give them to their posterity. Thus, the 5th session of the Council of Trent (1546) teaches that original sin is transmitted by propagation and not imitation. However, the contention arises in, if original sin is transmitted by propagation not by imitation. Somehow understanding it biologically implied that the transmission would be thru sexual procreation.. but the Council implied only a metaphysical transmission since the soul is immaterial being... I will quote the interpretation of [Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P. (Thomistic Evolution site)](http://www.thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/the-historicity-of-adam-and-eve-part-ii-the-doctrine-of-original-sin/) : > Now, some may read this statement by the Council of Trent – that original sin is transmitted by propagation and not by imitation – as a claim that original sin is transmitted biologically. However, the consequences of original sin are privations in the soul of the human being. Because of the original sin, his soul lacks grace and the preternatural gifts. Thus, when the Council of Trent teaches that the consequences of the original sin are transmitted by propagation and not by imitation, we should understand this as a metaphysical and not a biological claim. As an immaterial spirit, our soul and its properties are not determined by our genes. Instead, when God creates our souls when we are conceived, He creates them without the graces and gifts that we should have inherited from our original parents. In view of the Catholic Church Teaching defined in Council of Trent: **Does God give a human soul deprived of sanctifying grace at conception?**

What I am asking ================ What does Roman Catholic theology hold to be the nature of the original sin? If we consider the Tree of Knowledge, its fruit, and Adam and Eve partaking of it as all being metaphors, what is the meaning behind the metaphor? What exactly did Adam and Eve do that ran counter to God's command not to "eat of the Tree"? To clarify, I am not seeking to identify the Original Sin in terms of the Seven Deadly Sins; Catholic dogma tells us that the sin was Pride. What I'm trying to do is identify **the specific prideful thought or action** that Adam and Eve committed which was sinful. This question is being asked primarily to form the basis of [another question I have posted](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48803/original-sin-as-described-in-the-poem-of-the-man-god) . What I am looking for ===================== The ideal answer will contain citation of specific doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church regarding original sin, including: - The degree of binding authority conferred by the Magisterium upon the teachings (i.e. solemn or ordinary, universal or non-universal). - How the teachings were added to the deposit of faith (i.e. Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition). - Teachings derived from Sacred Scripture should also furnish quotation of the applicable verse(s) from a Catholic English Bible (i.e. an English-language translation of the Bible containing only the 73 canonical books and having the imprimatur of a Catholic bishop). - Teachings derived from Sacred Tradition should furnish quotations from the applicable conciliar canons or decrees, as well as links to the sources of their full texts. What I am not looking for ========================= - Discussion, analysis, or answers from non-Catholic perspectives.

What do protestants mean when they say that the bible is "clear"? I would assume that it would mean that people reading the Bible or any part of it generally come up with more or less the same idea of what it says, but that doesn't seem likely to be what protestants mean, because the different protestant cults regularly and consistently dream up radically different interpretations of the Bible as a whole and even different members of the same denomination rarely agree on the meaning of various passages. I've heard people say that the bible is clear enough that anyone can read it and immediately understand the "Core doctrines", but this is demonstrably false: Protestants don't agree on core doctrines because they don't even agree on what the core doctrines *are* in the first place. Some people read it and conclude that baptismal regeneration and infant baptism is the go, some people read it and come up with transubstantiation, some people read it and come away denying the trinity, some people read it and think that all you need to do is believe in Jesus to be saved, while other people read it and reckon that you need to do works as well. Protestants say that the Core Doctrines are "salvation issues", but they can't even come to an agreement of what those salvation issues are. I've heard people respond to this by saying something along the lines of "Scripture is clear, but we are sinful humans and our sin gets in the way of us understanding it", but to me that seems to just come across as a flat contradiction: If scripture is clear, then it should be so clear that our sin **doesn't** get in the way of us understanding it. However if sin still has the power to cloud our understanding of the bible, then the bible is **not clear enough** to cut through our sin, and is therefore for all intents and purposes **not clear at all**. Taking all this into consideration, what does it mean for Scripture to be "Clear" and "Sufficient"?

I'm trying to parse the words carefully to say "recognized as dogma" instead of "become dogma", but basically. How does a bill become a law, according to the Catholic Church. If, for instance, a group of neo-Origenists went [balls to the wall](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall) interpreting the Bible to mean that souls preexist conception. What processes are in place to move a something that most Catholics assent to (i.e. the human soul is created at the moment of conception) to something on the level of Doctrine or Dogma?