Under the Sola Scriptura rubric, this happens all the time without the presence of the CCC.
Another question would be is the CCC infallible? does the Church document and teach this?
Shakespere, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore all have inerrent Truth in thier works as well but IS the CCC infallible or are just parts of it infallible?
This is not necessarily true. The Church can does will and has changed certain teachings, She has the ability and wisdom to do so, many popes as demonstrated by the word wars in these threads dissagreed with one another on teaching. The parts of The CCC that contain dogma, and tenents of the faith… these are what I believe to be infallible but not the whole CCC itself. Whereas the Church has declared the Bible to be without error (when read contextually and with the guidence of the Church.) The modern CCC is not in my opinion the same “rock” for lack of a better word, than the Bible. However as many have pointed out they have yet to contradict eachother in my opinion but there sure are a lot of “The bible says” and “The CCC says” on these threads to make opposite points in a debate. One thing that bothers me as a Catholic s that I can quote scripture all day long…(I am an adult convert) but other Catholics seem to REALLY shy away from this and go to the CCC when arguing with thier protestant counterparts. Most of the problem I see as a lack of Catholic Catechesis in the Holy Scriptures vs. an easy to use desk referece style book of a sumation of our beliefs and teachings.
Well I assumed we were arguing apples vs. apples here. That is, God’s revelation as reflected in the CCC vs. God’s revelation as reflected the Bible.
Ok fair enough. Would it be correct for me to state that the Bible contains apples (Infallible inspired word of God ) and that the CCC has mostly apples with maybe a few oranges thrown in (teachings that the Church currently hold that either could be revised or have Changed in the course of human history and the Understanding of God.) Also could it be that as we believe as Christians that the Bible is a finished work, to remain unchanged but that the CCC is a collection of revelation that is evolutionary in nature.
Please don’t be upset. That is not my intention and that comment is not directed at any 1 person but it is surely is a common theme in Catholicism. 1) I do host a Bible study.
I think it’s a little more complicated than this. The Bible is certainly the inerrant inspired word of God, when that is understood to mean that “the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” (from the CCC). But when read outside the light of the Church, even the bible can yield false teachings, or teachings that were once valid and necessary and now are not. So outside the Church even the bible has oranges. Only the Church is able to discern without error all the apples from all the oranges.
All of God’s general revelation is complete, a finished work. And yet all of his revelation, both that found in Scripture and that found in Sacred Tradition, lends itself to ever greater understanding down the generations. To the extent that the teachings of the Church extend beyond doctrine and into disciplines, then the CCC, which attempts to summarize those teachings, is more fluid than the bible, because Catholics don’t look to the bible for inerrant disciplines (however, some other Christians do seem to do so).
Ok I totally understand this. I agree that outside the Church even the Bible has oranges. and I agree that the Church contextually interpreting the Bible is innereant but my question is is the CCC that infallible authority or does the Church reserve that for the role of Dogma or ex cathedra statements. (is the CCC ex Cathedra) or something with the same authority?
Ok here is where I might fall off the train.
Whoe… You are missing the point. I give full faith in Tadidtion in our Church, I believe that the HS leads us to these conclusions (about Mary’s assumption and andy othe holst of other things that the Church infallibly or dogmatically teaches. My mistrust is not with the Authority of the Church, but with the perception of the CCC being the End all recource we go to in the Church to find out what we believe. Again, I think you are misreading what I am getting at, this isn’t a question about Tradition or the authority of the Church. It is a disscussion on the CCC and if that is Wholey accurate in every way?
How did the Church defend thesee beliefs before the CCC in the 80s?
I wish I could recall the book Holy Father wrote when still cardinal now. He himself said it was not “perfect” and there were areas he thought could be tweaked a bit (my wording of course!) nonetheless, its an acceptable book.
Is the Holy Father you are referring to B16 or JPII? wsa he talking about the CCC or some other book? Nonetheless it is a good quote. I find no parts of it (the CCC) inaccurate. sure there are parts that don’t mesh with my opinion in regaurds to some issues but if there was one person here that didn’t have those doubts they would be a liar. I pray whenever I don’t personally believe the Churches teachings, any of them Dogma or teaching, theological speculation (limbo) or Tenent of the faith that I have the strenght humility and Trust to adhere to the Chuch as She knows better than I. Obedience is sorely lacking in todays Church and I really do not want to contribute to that, in fact the opposite but I am just talking about the two books themselves. I know Catholics that can quote the CCC to back up whatever point they want but can’t tell me if the Book of Romans is in the Old or New testament. I am just saying and I could be wrong that we as Catholics are misusing this reference given to us for the formation of our faith.