Catechism of the Catholic Church Authority

[m231134]

With my weekly attendance of the EF of the Latin Rite Liturgy, I encounter many people who do not embrace Vatican II. Often these conversations revolve around authority of the people involved in the specific issue at hand, and the manner in which the subject matter was declared. At times, my head is just spinning with the disagreements over terminology.

With regards to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I was interested in knowing how to view the contents, and the reasons why this is the case. I can see a range of answers from one extreme to the other as stated below.

Is the complete contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered infallible?, are parts considered infallible depending on their origin?, as a Catholic is one obligated to believe the contents as a matter of faith (supposing parts are not be declared infallible)?, are there any parts considered of the Catechism considered “up or theological debate”?

If different parts have different “authority”, how does one differentiate, and what is the reasoning for the answer in order to have the background to make a good argument.

 

[MarkThompson]

The Catechism was promulgated with the force of this Apostolic Constitution. Reading it might help you.

 

[thistle]

With my weekly attendance of the EF of the Latin Rite Liturgy, I encounter many people who do not embrace Vatican II. Often these conversations revolve around authority of the people involved in the specific issue at hand, and the manner in which the subject matter was declared. At times, my head is just spinning with the disagreements over terminology.

With regards to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I was interested in knowing how to view the contents, and the reasons why this is the case. I can see a range of answers from one extreme to the other as stated below.

Is the complete contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered infallible?, are parts considered infallible depending on their origin?, as a Catholic is one obligated to believe the contents as a matter of faith (supposing parts are not be declared infallible)?, are there any parts considered of the Catechism considered “up or theological debate”?

If different parts have different “authority”, how does one differentiate, and what is the reasoning for the answer in order to have the background to make a good argument.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (both infallible and non-infallible) plus disciplines.
We must accept all of them!

 

[runningdude]

Reading Marks link above, I’m pretty sure that Pope John considered the Catechism to issued to be a definitive summary of the faith, as expressed through the centuries and as expressed by Vatican II. In part, one of his goals seems to be to reconcile public perception of Vatican II with the actual teachings the Council issued, and there fidelity to the deposit of faith.

Where there is room for speculation of Catholic Doctrine, I think its mentioned within the Catechism text (based on my experience). But for the most part, its meant to be a summary of the faith, and a partial index of the councils throughout the ages so that clarification on any point can easily be sought by looking up the documents referenced from the footnotes.

Some notable quotes from the Apostolic Bull:

This response [from the bishops who participated in the Catechism’s creation] elicits in me a deep feeling of joy, because the harmony of so many voices truly expresses what could be called the “symphony” of the faith. The achievement of this Catechism thus reflects the collegial nature of the Episcopate; it testifies to the Church’s catholicity.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

(blue lets it show up in the daily email update )

 

[Vince1022]

Is the complete contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered infallible?, are parts considered infallible depending on their origin?, as a Catholic is one obligated to believe the contents as a matter of faith (supposing parts are not be declared infallible)?, are there any parts considered of the Catechism considered “up or theological debate”?

No,maybe, yes, yes.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You’ll see the footnotes of the Catechism point you towards scripture, Church documents and writings of the Church Fathers and Church Doctors. If thats not authoritative enough, I don’t know what is.

 

[sovegna_vos]

You’ll see the footnotes of the Catechism point you towards scripture, Church documents and writings of the Church Fathers and Church Doctors. If thats not authoritative enough, I don’t know what is.

On this point some people might not be aware that Ignatius publish a fantastic book resource called the Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I contains all of the text excerpts reffered to in the footnotes in the CCC.

An incredible resource and depository of thought, wisdom, tradition and prayer.

 

[CB_Catholic]

With my weekly attendance of the EF of the Latin Rite Liturgy, I encounter many people who do not embrace Vatican II. Often these conversations revolve around authority of the people involved in the specific issue at hand, and the manner in which the subject matter was declared. At times, my head is just spinning with the disagreements over terminology.

With regards to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I was interested in knowing how to view the contents, and the reasons why this is the case. I can see a range of answers from one extreme to the other as stated below.

Is the complete contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered infallible?, are parts considered infallible depending on their origin?, as a Catholic is one obligated to believe the contents as a matter of faith (supposing parts are not be declared infallible)?, are there any parts considered of the Catechism considered “up or theological debate”?

If different parts have different “authority”, how does one differentiate, and what is the reasoning for the answer in order to have the background to make a good argument.

To be blunt, why are there so many people in that Latin Mass community who do not accept the authority of Vatican II? This would send up a red flag for me. Perhaps you should talk to the priest(s) involved about this? They may need to educate the congregation. I would be very concerned about this. Is this community approved by the Bishop?

 

[puzzleannie]

With my weekly attendance of the EF of the Latin Rite Liturgy, I encounter many people who do not embrace Vatican II. Often these conversations revolve around authority of the people involved in the specific issue at hand, and the manner in which the subject matter was declared. .

if these individuals reject the dogmatic teachings of Vatican II because they reject the God-given authority of they Church they are no longer Catholic because they have willingly separated themselves from that authority. They are not reliable guides to any Catholic teaching. Seek elsewhere for what you want to learn.

 

[m231134]

To be blunt, why are there so many people in that Latin Mass community who do not accept the authority of Vatican II? This would send up a red flag for me. Perhaps you should talk to the priest(s) involved about this? They may need to educate the congregation. I would be very concerned about this. Is this community approved by the Bishop?

The community is approved by the Bishop, but just as there are people as part of the Catholic Church who do not agree with the Church’s stand on abortion, artificial contraception, etc, there are people drawn to the EF Liturgy who do not agree with the church on issues that have come up as part of Vatican II and the aftermath. It is not a large percentage, but they are present. All Catholic groups have their challenges, it is just that the subject matter is different or those who are attending OF and the EF.

Honestly, they do not need to mention, from a teaching standpoint, the concept of artificial contraception at the church, as the evidence is in the congregation. There is not a recently married couple without a new baby, and most families have a very full quiver.

I ask the question I did because I am trying to become educated in the subject matter in order to have an intelligent conversation on the subject matter.

The question as to the specifics of the Catechism seem to be answered, it contains all I have mentioned, and I understand infallibility, but how does something become something that we are obligated to believe by faith in the guidance in the Church, compared to something that is optional, example such as apparitions of Mary.

 

[JReducation]

With my weekly attendance of the EF of the Latin Rite Liturgy, I encounter many people who do not embrace Vatican II. Often these conversations revolve around authority of the people involved in the specific issue at hand, and the manner in which the subject matter was declared. At times, my head is just spinning with the disagreements over terminology.

With regards to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I was interested in knowing how to view the contents, and the reasons why this is the case. I can see a range of answers from one extreme to the other as stated below.

Is the complete contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered infallible?, are parts considered infallible depending on their origin?, as a Catholic is one obligated to believe the contents as a matter of faith (supposing parts are not be declared infallible)?, are there any parts considered of the Catechism considered “up or theological debate”?

If different parts have different “authority”, how does one differentiate, and what is the reasoning for the answer in order to have the background to make a good argument.

I believe that many people are easily confused for a number of reasons. Catechisms contain infallible teaching. No catechism is infallible. Each of them could have been worded better, could have said more or said less. Each has a “personality” of its own. Notice my quotation marks. There has never been a catechism that abrogates a previous catechism. That is never the intent of the Church when she issues a formal catechism. Her intent is to correct those editions out there that are not authorized but usually in common use and are defective.

The CCC disturbs some people, because it uses many citations from Vatican II as references. But what people do not know is that those citations are based on prior teachings of the Church. Often, the CCC will refer to the latest statement on a subject, rather than the original statement, because of language. The later statement is in language that is closer to that of the reader or in the language that the Church wishes to use at this time. The teaching is not different, just the language in which is said.

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have said that the CCC tries to develop what Trent did not. It does not try to teach anything new. To develop is very different from changing teachings. They try to get behind the thinking of the Catechism of Trent and give us more than than conclusions. The Catechism of Trent the Baltimore Catechism and several others that we used in the past, gave us the conclusions, but not the background.

Then there are points in Church law that can and do change. Those points were not in the older catechisms. Even now, we have changes in law that are not reflected in the CCC.

As to authoritative, the Holy Father made it very clear an the Constitution Anglicanorum. One of the requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church is the recognition of the authoritative teaching of the current catechism. It’s spelled out so that there is no room for someone to say, “I prefer the Catechism of Trent and not the CCC”. Pope Benedict requires submission to the CCC.

**§5 The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate. **
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html

One can safely assume that acceptance of the CCC as authoritative is a requirement for admission to the Catholic Church, then it is also a requirement for those inside.

On a more personal note, this edition of the catechism is near and dear to this pope’s heart, because he was at the helm when it was put together. Every part of it went though the Sacred Congregation for the Faith during his leadership.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Pope Benedict said it well in his interview with Seewald. I can’t find the quote or I’d use it. But he was explaining that if we reduce our assent only to what has been decreed under the mantle of infallibility, there would be very little that we would share in common. The Church is built on much more than infallible decrees. He explains that infallibility applies to dogmas. It has never been invoked for moral teachings. Some moral teachings come directly from scripture and sacred tradition; therefore, their infallibility is unquestioned. Other moral teachings are based on infallible doctrines, such as the nature of man, which is the basis for our teachings on human dignity and every immorality that violates it. But the teaching itself has not been declared infallibly. We assent, because it is built on an infallible doctrine. One of those infallible doctrines is the authority of Peter. Even when Peter does not declare something under the umbrella of infallibility, when he speaks as the Pontiff, what he says is authoritative and demands assent, because Peter has spoken. The authority of Peter is a matter of doctrine.

I realize that it’s a little mental gymnastics, but it actually makes sense to get away from the “infallible mentality” and move toward “authoritative mentality”. Not everything is infallible. But whatever Peter says or authorizes another to say is authoritative. His authority is grounded on an infallible principle.

I like to use the example of religious life. My superiors are not endowed with infallibility. The bishop of the diocese where I minister is not endowed with infallibility. But both are endowed with authority. The rule of my order says that I must obey without questions, even if they are wrong. The only thing they can never ask me to do is to commit a sin. They have the authority to ask for and demand whatever is authorized by law. If we did not assent, the great Franciscan family, which is now 800 years old and has over 100 branches on every continent in the world, would have disappeared after the death of Francis of Assisi. Our 800-year history has seen its fair share of conflicts and debates between the brethren. It’s always the decrees of authority that have put an end to those conflicts. In the 1800s there were 10 or 12 branches of the order that could not agree on certain principles. Finally, Pope Leo XII said, ENOUGH. He unified them, gave them a common superior general and took away the names of their respective communities. He said that to avoid conflict, they could only call themselves The Franciscans. That’s how the one group that most people know as The Franciscan Friars, came into existence. There was nothing infallible about it. They were not very happy. It was authority that brought the discussion to an end. These men were debating a whole way of life and their faith. Finally, they had to accept someone else’s authority.

This has happened many times in Church history, not just with religious families. The Church invokes her authority to command assent. I always pay more attention to the use of the word “authority” than “infallible”. Infallible is rarely used.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tradycja]

Catechisms are not infallible documents. Catechisms are not part of the solemn magisterial teaching of the Church. They are only infallible, where they reiterate defined doctrine. Even the Catechism of Trent is not per se infallible, but onl…y in the same qualified sense. The Jesuits, for example, refused to abide by the Trent Catechism on the question of efficacious grace and the freedom of the will. The Catechism favored the Thomistic view, which emphasized the movement of the free will by grace. The Jesuits emphasized the free will’s cooperation with the grace. Both opinions are free to be held, so long as the two extremes of Jansenism, on the one side, and Pelagianism on the other are avoided. If a catechism teaches a novel doctrine, then that cannot be part of the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium must measure with the solemn magisterium, it is not a parallel magisterium. Basically the famous principle laid down by St, Vincent of Lerins defines what came to be known as the “ordinary magisterium.” That is of Catholic Faith which has been believed “semper, ubique, et ab omnibus.” (always, everywhere, and by all.)

Also look what Cardinal Ratzinger has to say about the matter:

“The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.” (Page 26, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church) See the direct Link Here

 

[ConstantineTG]

On this point some people might not be aware that Ignatius publish a fantastic book resource called the Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I contains all of the text excerpts reffered to in the footnotes in the CCC.

An incredible resource and depository of thought, wisdom, tradition and prayer.

Or if you’re cheap like me, Google
Most of it is available free online

 

[Genesis315]

Yeah, here’s the context of the relevant Ratzinger quote from above:

jimmyakin.org/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html

 

[stuart12]

if these individuals reject the dogmatic teachings of Vatican II because they reject the God-given authority of they Church they are no longer Catholic because they have willingly separated themselves from that authority. They are not reliable guides to any Catholic teaching. Seek elsewhere for what you want to learn.

What would those ‘dogmatic teachings’ be?

Pope Paul VI:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964.* In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility*.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

At the most, the Council warrants obedience as long as particular aspects do not contradict what went before.