Well, looks like there is a difference of opinion. One poster said that Fr. Cutie was "a very minor part" of the Magisterim even when he had 'departed from the Faith'.
What if the bishop is 'teaching' in union w/ the Pope but living otherwise? Are they still part of the Magisterium?
Even so, that then assumes that only the Pope is infallible and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Then how does one know whether that is true? Because the Pope and those who agree with him say so? Isn't that a bit of a logical fallacy?
Another poster had mentioned "a few bad popes", which would seem to be a problem. Under this definition, only those bishops who agreed with those "few bad popes" were 'The Magisterium" and everyone else was wrong.
The Magisterium is happy to tell you that God is the ultimate authority, and they're only his servant."
Well that's fine. I suppose the rub comes in if you're saying that 'The Magisterium' is the only group that can know the ultimate authority of God and communicate that to me, "a few bad popes" notwithstanding? How do you know who the 'bad popes' are if they are assumed to be infallible and only those who agree with them are authoritative?
"Ordination doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, wisdom, or holiness, sorry. Or, as one past member of the Magisterium put it, "The streets of hell are paved with the skulls of bishops."
That was another poster's opinion, not mine. It appears that there is some disagreement and confusion around who is a member of 'the Magisterium' and who is not?
"Individual bishops don't have a charism of infallibility, and the certainly don't have one when they evaluate candidates for the priesthood."
Are you saying that they aren't part of 'the Magisterium' even if, by definition, they are "teaching in union with" the Pope? How do you identify these people so that you know whom to obey and whom to ignore?
Even so, that then assumes that only the Pope is infallible and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Then how does one know whether that is true? Because the Pope and those who agree with him say so? Isn't that a bit of a logical fallacy?
These are good questions and I for one thank you for asking them. Not only no-catholics but many catholics themselves do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes the Magisterium. Let's begin with basics.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is defined as "the Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion". In other words, Our Lord gave His Church the authority to teach the faithful about what is expected of them, and that is what the Church has done consistently from the start.
The Magisterium of Catholic Church teaches the faithful in two ways.
1. Solemn Magisterium - is Church teaching which is used only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. This includes dogmatic definitions by councils or Popes teaching "ex cathedra"
2. Ordinary Magisterium - is the second form of Church teaching that is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared.
References In Scripture to the Magisterium of the Church - Acts 15:6-8, Acts 15:28, Matthew 16:15.
Examples of the Solemn Magisterium of the Church (also called "ex cathedra teaching"): - The decisions made during the General Councils of the Catholic Church. Papal encyclicals on "The Immaculate Conception" (1849) and "Defining the Dogma of the Assumption" (1950).
Examples of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church - Universal teaching of the Church such as other papal encyclicals (when not written in "ex cathedra" form), universal references such as the Summa Theologica, and writings of Saints that are continually utilized by the Church and passed from Pope to Pope without objection.
Another poster had mentioned "a few bad popes", which would seem to be a problem. Under this definition, only those bishops who agreed with those "few bad popes" were 'The Magisterium" and everyone else was wrong.
I was the one that posted the comment. Now understand as the Teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church, you can see that a few bad popes in no way effected the teachings of the Church.
This information should also answer the additional questions you posed.
I think that is a valid point. For one of their own "Church Fathers" to say that, "the streets of hell are paved with the skulls of bishops", admits a peculiar truth that there can really be no sure infallibility of the magesterium. The "gift" of infallibility is nowhere mentioned in Scripture and, since they are the only ones who claim they alone have this gift, it begs the question if even that statement can be infallible.