Catechism "infallible?"

[itsjustdave1988]

If I am following you though, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is teaching that, essentially, only learned theologians are in a position where they could even conceivably question certain non-inerrant teachings of the Church.

Not only theologians, but each of the faithful according to their knowledge and competence have a right, even a duty to manifest their opinion on matters related to the good of the Church. Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, affirms:

By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ.

The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.

[Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 37]

I’m in the military, and we too have an obligation to say to the general, “but Sir…” He expects this from us. However, after a “but, Sir…” or two, I am to subordinate my will to his lawful decision.

This charitable “but, Father…” in the Catholic context should not be confused with “dissent: the public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church.”

Then, they have every obligation to bring themselves through diligent study and prayer to a complete understanding of the Church’s position and, if they still believe based on concrete evidence that the Church is wrong, they must limit their discussion of the issue to the Magisterium. At that point, it is remotely possible that the Magisterium would conclude that the theologian has a point.

Correct. Except I don’t think it is “remotely possible.” there are countless examples where a charitable “but Father…” has worked for the good of the Church. Moreover, there are also examples of reform from within the Church with regard to the non-irreformable matters of the Church.

For instance, Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan, in his book Protestantism, wrote:

Such [reform] movements were pietistic and evangelical… Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) established an order of men pledged to labor in the world for the welfare of others in utter devotion to “the Lord who made Himself poor for us.” (pg 25)

"Somewhere in the twelfth century the structure of life in Europe enter upon a period of change and development… This came about not so much because of the conflict between Church and emperor for supremacy as it did through the assertion by the local ruling houses of their own authority in their own realms. (pg 17)

"…for centuries preceding the modern era the Church had carefully and patiently nurtured the barbarian people who had overthrown the Roman Empire, bringing to them an orderly existence, a defined moral conscience, and a knowledge of their relationship to God.*** In this work the Church was carrying on its proper task of spiritual care.*** The result was to bring to a condition of healthy vitality spirits which had earlier been difussed in primitive waywardness…

In the time of scholasticism (tenth century on), men raised questions about life and the meaning of existence as man is bound to do, but ***the answer to their questions were worked out within the beliefs and principles laid down by the Christian religion… ***

Nonetheless, there were others who instead of reforming from within, chose to simply reject the authority of the Church altogether. Dunstan continues…

But when man’s spirit asserted itself in his awareness of himself as a person, man became his own authority and considered his own reason capable of finding truth for itself. When man came to believe that, scholasticism came to an end… when men became conscious of themselvs as persons, they rose in protest against the conditions of their living and in the course of time wiped out the existing political order and created a new order in which they were recognized as persons. … he puts himself in a position of being master of his own affairs. (pg. 21-22, ibid.)

"This same new birth of man’s spirit was the moving force within Protestantism…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

This is interesting because such an approach is remarkably different from the approach we, as Protestants, would take to the problem. (You’d probably agree with that statement, the “rub” being which approach is justifiable).

Yes. I believe the Protestant reformers lacked the patience needed to reform the Church from within, while the Catholic reformers remained stedfast in their loyalty and submission to the Church established by Christ (as demanded by Sacred Scripture), while also reforming from within, moving the Church to live more faithfully in accord with the teachings of Christ.

However, I think you are minimizing the passage from Galations regarding Paul’s rebuke of Peter. Yes, one aspect of the rebuke involved Peter’s actions. (And I follow you on the distinction between a person’s actions and the theology being taught by that person although, from a practical standpoint, such person will undermine his teaching if his life does not comport with that teaching…compare Paul’s instructions to imitate him since he imitates Christ).

Still, the passage also indicates to me that Peter’s teaching was also implicated: "“You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

Good point.

If Peter was forcing Gentitles to follow Jewish customs then, presumably, Peter was telling these Gentiles that it was mandated (or necessary, or proper, or appropriate) to follow the Jewish customs.

Perhaps, but I think this is speculative. If he did explicitly mandate, then this pertains to discipline, not doctrine.

However, the word from Galatians translated above as “force” is in Greek “anagkazo.” It means, to necessitate, compel, drive to, constrain." It does not necessarily mean “by explicit command or directive.” According to the Protestant source, *Thayer’s Lexicon, *Thayer asserts that the word ***anagkazo ***as it was used in Gal ch 2, v. 3 and v.14 means to compel “***by your example.” ***Which was my point earlier. Peter led by a bad example and it influenced other Christians to repeat that bad example. I don’t believe we have any evidence that this was by explicit direction from Peter that "compelled’ others to act hypocritically, but it was his bad example.

St. Robert Bellermine affirms that Catholics may justifiably refuse submission to a pope’s “bad example” (St. Robert Bellarming, De Romano Pontifice, II.29). I believe this more accurately depicts the occasion of Paul, rightfully manifesting his opinions on matters pertaining to the good of the Church due to the occasion of Peter’s bad example.

A modern-day example of this, in my opinion, would be when John Paul II kissed the Koran. Many expressed their opinion against the pope for doing this (some not so charitably). I too believe this was a “bad example” which should not compel other faithful Christians to do the same. In this instance, Catholics are certainly permitted (in accord with Lumen Gentium) to imitate Paul’s example and manifest our opinion in charity, and refuse to follow the bad example of a pope.

 

[rr1213]

RE: Bolded comment above.
There is a very big distinction between when a Pope speaks ex cathedra (infallably) and I think we all agree this is not to which the exchange between Peter and Paul was about.

For example, if a Pope were to speak ex cathedra that it is an infallible Teaching that consuming alcohol was a sin, as Catholics we are bound to accept that. Whether the Pope continued to drink beer does not reflect on our obligation. We don’t confuse impeccability (the ability of the Pope to resist sin and follow divine teaching doesn’t denigrate the inspiration of the teaching).

And while there are practical considerations to a Pope that doesn’t follow the divinely inspired teaching that he communicates via his Christ-appointed charism, Catholics are under no illusion that the Pope, Peter or Paul were perfect. I have no doubt (despite Paul’s many clear teachngs recorded in Scripture) that Paul himself didn’t stumble many many times after that fateful day when Christ confronted Paul about persecuting Him. Catholics know it happened but we don’t discount what Paul told us. A lay person or a member of the Curia who chastised a Pope for his private behavior doesn’t become the Pope’s superior with regard to Sacred Teaching. Paul understood that too.

I agree with what you’re saying here. My questions are about the obligation of the faithful Catholic to obey/assent to teachings which have not been defined as being inerrant (whether by the Pope or the Magisterium). In other words, there are teachings which don’t fall into those classifications and, if I understand Dave correctly, and if Dave has correctly cited the teachings of the Church, I am still obligated to follow if I am to be a faithful Catholic (with the fairly minimal distinction referenced above if I am a learned theologian in certain instances). I referenced Paul’s rebuke to Peter as grounds for disagreeing with this position and Dave made the point that Paul was speaking about Peter’s personal actions as opposed to Peter’s teachings (inerrant or otherwise). While I agree that Paul was referencing Peter’s actions, I think that the rebuke also went towards his teachings as well as mentioned in my post above. If I am correct on that, then you have the Scripture counter-example of an (arguably) ecclesiastical “subordinate” (Paul) very publically confronting and correcting his ecclesiastical superior, the Pope (Peter), regarding a theologial teaching of Peter.

 

[rr1213]

However, the word from Galatians translated above as “force” is in Greek “anagkazo.” It means, to necessitate, compel, drive to, constrain." It does not necessarily mean “by explicit command or directive.” According to the Protestant source, *Thayer’s Lexicon, *Thayer asserts that the word ***anagkazo ***as it was used in Gal ch 2, v. 3 and v.14 means to compel “***by your example.” ***Which was my point earlier. Peter led by a bad example and it influenced other Christians to repeat that bad example. I don’t believe we have any evidence that this was by explicit direction from Peter that "compelled’ others to act hypocritically, but it was his bad example.

Being ignorant of Greek, I wouldn’t presume to comment on the Greek you cited. But the passage I quoted states that Paul said: "“You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” It must have been more than a mere bad example by which Peter lead Gentlile converts astray, because Paul accuses Peter, himself, of living like a Gentile. If that was the case, the Gentile converts would be following Peter’s example and living as gentiles, instead of being forced (somehow) to live like Jews as Paul observes.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I agree with what you’re saying here. My questions are about the obligation of the faithful Catholic to obey/assent to teachings which have not been defined as being inerrant (whether by the Pope or the Magisterium). In other words, there are teachings which don’t fall into those classifications and, if I understand Dave correctly, and if Dave has correctly cited the teachings of the Church, I am still obligated to follow if I am to be a faithful Catholic (with the fairly minimal distinction referenced above if I am a learned theologian in certain instances). I referenced Paul’s rebuke to Peter as grounds for disagreeing with this position and Dave made the point that Paul was speaking about Peter’s personal actions as opposed to Peter’s teachings (inerrant or otherwise). While I agree that Paul was referencing Peter’s actions, I think that the rebuke also went towards his teachings as well as mentioned in my post above. If I am correct on that, then you have the Scripture counter-example of an (arguably) ecclesiastical “subordinate” (Paul) very publically confronting and correcting his ecclesiastical superior, the Pope (Peter), regarding a theologial teaching of Peter.

In Post #33, itsjustdave answered this point quite well regarding our obligation to assent to our shepherd’s exercising proper teaching authority beyond what is declared infallably. We are to do prayerfully engage our thought and will to conform out of confidence and trust in their sacred charism in these matters (an act of faith). If we have trouble doing it as an act of faith, we are called to do it as an act of charity.

There is a continuum with regard to our obligation. For instance, with regard to abortion, the obligation is pretty much absolute. But as the matter becomes more a matter of prudential judgment on the best way to achieve the teaching, the obligation becomes more of a suggestion. For instance, certain matters of social justice might fall into this realm. The following is a personal example.

Several years ago, our state and particularly the agriculture community was in the throes of a combination of drought and low commodity prices. Our Bishop in exercising his appropriate teaching authority urged Catholics to speak together for a particular public policy because of the economic and human impact of what was happening. While my heart and that of the Bishop were one, our views on his public policy remedy were polar opposites. I ran into the Bishop, shared my opposition opinion, and we parted with him saying “I have prayed about my position and am comfortable with it. Have you prayed about yours?” In short, his main teaching priority was related to sensitizing the flock of the pain and suffering and to engage ourselves to be part of the solution. How we prayerfully chose to engage ourselves was of minor concern to him.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Being ignorant of Greek, I wouldn’t presume to comment on the Greek you cited. But the passage I quoted states that Paul said: "“You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” It must have been more than a mere bad example by which Peter lead Gentlile converts astray, because Paul accuses Peter, himself, of living like a Gentile. If that was the case, the Gentile converts would be following Peter’s example and living as gentiles, instead of being forced (somehow) to live like Jews as Paul observes.

I’m no Greek scholar either, and so I defer to those that are, such as Thayer.

However, the bad example was not his prior “living like a Gentile” but the bad example was when he no longer dined with the Gentiles when those Jewish-Christians came to town. That is the hypocrisy that Paul is speaking of. Remember the context…Peter ate unclean foods with the Gentiles because of the vision he received. Nonetheless, in this instance he acted differently when the Jewish-Christians came to town, behaving more in accord with their liking than his prior behavior, probably with the intention of not wanting to offend. Paul criticized him for “compelling” (according to Thayer, by his “example”) others to live like Jews.

 

[Bishopite]

[Ron Conte;1564795]I disagree that the extant manuscripts and various translations are not, in any sense, inspired. Certainly a copyist, printer, translator, or editor of the Bible is not working under inspiration, but the Bible in general retains the effects of the original inspiration, despite the possibility of error in particular editions of the Bible. The Bible is still inspired, even though none of the original manuscripts are extant.

No our bibles are not inspired and only the originals were because the writers were directly guided by the Holy Spirit to write scripture. Our bibles are certainly infallible since they do retain infallible truth, however, they are not (theopneustos or God breathed).

As an analogy, the Immaculate Conception occurred at one particular moment in time, at the very beginning of the Virgin Mary’s existence. Yet she retained the effects of the Immaculate Conception throughout her life, so that it can also be truly said that the Immaculate Conception was a continuing and unending gift to her (and to us). So also with Sacred Scripture.

Would it not be fair to say that the original scriptural texts written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit only happened once also, yet it affects continued through its copies?

Also, it may well be the case for certain books that the original author was inspired, and that additional authors/editors contributed to the book later, also under inspiration, so that the first inspired form was amended under inspiration. So it is not true that only the ‘original scroll’ was inspired.

Well when I said “original scroll” I’m meant the finished scroll. It is possible that there may have been multiple authors when the scroll was being written, however when it was finished or completed it would have been “theopneustos” simply because “theopeustos” in 2 Tim 3:16 means that which was written was exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Whether or not the book had multiple authors is irrelevant; what matters is that the Holy Spirit had that person infallibly write what He wanted them to write under His guidance and yet the author(s) retained their human faculties, emotions, personalities etc.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I think that John’s Gospel was inspired Scripture when he completed writing it. But later his disciples, also under inspiration, completed it. So there were at least two substantially different but fully inspired forms of the Gospel of John.

Ron

 

[Bishopite]

I think that John’s Gospel was inspired Scripture when he completed writing it. But later his disciples, also under inspiration, completed it. So there were at least two substantially different but fully inspired forms of the Gospel of John.

Ron

Actually if the book of Scripture had more than one author and wasn’t complete then that still wouldn’t be two inspirations but one of the whole one book. I can see your point that more than one person can be inspired to write which makes more than one inspiration of a person but inspiration of one book of Scripture has only one for the whole book no matter the number of authors; the orginal scrolls themselves were inspired but our copies aren’t in the same theopnuestos sense.
The term “inspiration” is a technical term used in Catholic theology and from what I’ve read isn’t found in Scripture but God breathed (theopeustos) is applied to 2 Tim 3:16. An inspired book is one which has God as its primary authorship even though a human being He chose, wrote it

The Catechism and our Bibles we have don’t have God as their primary author, although they are infallible truth, yet the Catechism doesn’t contain all dogmatic truth from the Magisterium, e.g., Mary’s mediatrix as I said prior.

A good article to read:
cin.org/users/james/files/inspirat.htm

 

[JOE_OBERR]

The Catechism is as near as it gets to being infallible without being official.

But it is not infallible, i.e like the bible, which is God Breathed.

The catechism’s teachings (which comprise about 90% of the catechism) are infallible, that is, they are true and irreformable. Just as 2 + 2 = 4 and always will, the teachings of the Catholic Church will never change. Dissidents have been trying for 2,000 years to find a reformable teaching but without success. Jesus gave authority to his church to teach the truth, after all, it is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (not the bible).

The pope made it clear in the prologue of the catechism that it meets the four criteria for the test of the charism of infallibility. Truth, and christianity, comes from Jesus’ Church founded on the apostles, not from one’s personal guesswork on bible verses.

Joe