CCC - Infallible document?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YinYangMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YinYangMom

Guest
So, I’m in this brief discussion with a fellow Catholic the other afternoon about the church’s teaching on contraception and a used-to-be-practicing-Catholic-now-Universal-Church-member co-worker overheard our discussion.

He and his wife switched churches because the other church focuses more energy on humanitarian principles than the catholic church does for them. They believe in actions more than lectures.

Anyway, after the conversation ended the ‘action’ co-worker asked if my position has changed about Catholicism (he knows hubby and I are from CA and against the war, for equal rights, etc.) and I explained that because of my teen kids I’ve done a lot of indepth reading about the church, and yes, my attitudes have changed as a result.

He asked what kind of Catholic I would consider myself as now (I suppose as opposed to a ‘liberal’ catholic)…and I said “magisterium”. He asked what that meant and I tried to explain it as loyal to the teachings of the Church, trusting that they have the inside scoop here.

That moved us on to certain teachings and whether or not “these” or “those” were infallible teachings. And that’s where I get tangled up because I’m still not clear about that infallibility thing.

So I got to thinking - I’ve trusted that the CCC is an infallible document - no negotiating here, one reads it and either accepts or rejects it. The teachings therein will not change over the years.

Question #1: Is that true? Looking at the articles at Catholic Answers on infallibility…it seems as though the fact that the council was appointed by the Pope to develop the book, and that he put out that letter explaining what it was and how it should be used - that he, in essence, was saying we are obliged to accept it as complete Truth. But he didn’t do this ex-Cathedra, right?

Question #2: How many times has ex-Cathedra been used and for what declaration?

Question #3: What is the heirarchy with regard to determining infallibility of a particular teaching of the Church?

With the Pope’s ex-Cathedra at the top…what is the next step down - an encyclical by him? A homily? and after the Pope, whose teachings rank next? A cardinal, archbishop, or is the next step below Councils called by the Pope…all the way down to a bishop’s letters to the diocese…what is the ranking?

Any help making sense of where to place what amount of faith/trust is appreciated.

Thanks.
 
The Pope has declared the Cathechism to be a “sure norm for teaching”.

From the Apostolic Letter

APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE

IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

** JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY**

…
With today’s promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).
 
40.png
buffalo:
The Pope has declared the Cathechism to be a “sure norm for teaching”.

From the Apostolic Letter

APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE

IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

…
With today’s promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).
Click to expand...
Right. I read that…my question is - is this specific apostolic letter an example of papal infallibility (his own personal discernment guided by the Holy Spirit) or general infallibility (because a council of bishops worked together under the Holy Spirit and the pope is signing off on it)?

Or is this the kind of thing that falls under that ex-cathedra category???

I’m so confused I’m not even certain my questions make sense, but I trust the rest of you wise ones will help me straighten things out…you’re so good at that!
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Right. I read that…my question is - is this specific apostolic letter an example of papal infallibility (his own personal discernment guided by the Holy Spirit) or general infallibility (because a council of bishops worked together under the Holy Spirit and the pope is signing off on it)?

Or is this the kind of thing that falls under that ex-cathedra category???

I’m so confused I’m not even certain my questions make sense, but I trust the rest of you wise ones will help me straighten things out…you’re so good at that!
Click to expand...
To me, that has also always been an issue–what in the CCC is infallible, what is consistent teaching, etc–in other words what comparable level are different things in there at?

In one of the other threads here, someone, I think it might have been Catholic2003, posted a link to a document that listed all of the teachings that are considered infallible. I’ll see if I can find the reference and post it here as it was very useful. Most of them actually come from the ecumenical council clarifications of things.

Peace,
 
40.png
ncjohn:
To me, that has also always been an issue–what in the CCC is infallible, what is consistent teaching, etc–in other words what comparable level are different things in there at?

In one of the other threads here, someone, I think it might have been Catholic2003, posted a link to a document that listed all of the teachings that are considered infallible. I’ll see if I can find the reference and post it here as it was very useful. Most of them actually come from the ecumenical council clarifications of things.

Peace,
Click to expand...
Dogmas of the Catholic Church
 
40.png
buffalo:
40.png
ncjohn:
To me, that has also always been an issue–what in the CCC is infallible, what is consistent teaching, etc–in other words what comparable level are different things in there at?

In one of the other threads here, someone, I think it might have been Catholic2003, posted a link to a document that listed all of the teachings that are considered infallible. I’ll see if I can find the reference and post it here as it was very useful. Most of them actually come from the ecumenical council clarifications of things.

Peace,
Click to expand...
Dogmas of the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
No this was actually infallible teachings. It was about 300 items as I recall. I printed it out and have it at home, so hopefully there will be something on it that tells me exactly where I got it.
 
It was this link, which is just the de fide teachings from Ott. Buffalo’s link also includes teachings with lower grades of theological certainty.

Also see my post of infallible teachings, by the ordinary and universal magisterium, identified as such by the Magisterium after Dr. Ott published this work.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
It was this link, which is just the de fide teachings from Ott. Buffalo’s link also includes teachings with lower grades of theological certainty.

Also see my post of infallible teachings, by the ordinary and universal magisterium, identified as such by the Magisterium after Dr. Ott published this work.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I thought it was your research that had found those. I found them very informative. 🙂
 
40.png
buffalo:
If you mean dogmas, here they are. Dogmas of the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
That was great, thanks!

Now it says that’s from 1974.
The CCC came out in '82, if I recall correctly…

are there any new dogmas to add to the list since 1974?

and…

of those dogmas, which were declared by which method (ex-cathedra, council, etc.)?

I guess what I’m trying to get at is a position where I can refute the misconception that whatever the pope says, whenever, is considered infallible.

And then how, when a non-catholic presses me to discuss a specific writing or teaching - when they tell me 'You have to obey and believe it because the Church teaches it so it must be infallible"…when it could be a letter a specific bishop of a specific diocese printed for his people — is that binding on all Catholics? No. Why? and that’s where I get stuck…

Why is it there’s a distinction between certain offices speaking and us having to obey, than others where we have a ‘choice’ to obey or not (particularly when you have several bishops teaching contrary positions on a subject like contraception and just war doctrine)? This confuses the non-catholic…but confuses me even more.

I want to know what I can absolutely trust as the bottom line on matters of life and faith. Right now, I trust only the Pope and the Councils he calls and the decisions they reach. Everyone below that makes me nervous…and I don’t think I should be in that position.
 
Thank you for the links…I looked for quite a while but got lost too many times…this is most helpful!

🙂
 
Is the CCC an “infallible” document?

We-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l, do YOU know what YOU mean by the words of your question?

When we discuss God and the things of God – including “infallibility” – we are discussing something semi-mystical, something which though it has an aspect which touches us and is comprehensible by us, also has an aspect connected to God which is NOT comprehensible.

The Arian Heresy nearly overwhelmed Catholic Christianity in the Early Church. The Roman Emperor himself was Arian. Bishop Athanasius boldly and loudly opposed vthe Athanasian Heresy.

At first, Pope Liberius did, too.

But Athanasius and Jerome write that Pope Liberius reversed himself while in custody, instead of trusting in God. He supposedly issued a formula tolerating the Arian Heresy.

Now, how did Athanasius respond to what most loyal Catholics would agree was an “infallible” teaching, at least as “infallible” as the CCC?

He opposed it.

At the time, the victorious Roman Emperor coined the phrase, “It’s Athanasius against the world!,” apparently to derisively poke nasty fun at Athanasius. The phrase became a badge of highest honor to Athanasius, however: After the Roman Emperor died, Liberius condemned his own prior teaching, and approved Bishop Athanasius’ formula!

Afterwards, Athanasius was declared a saint. Liberius became the first pope not declared a saint.

So, does “infallible” mean “absolutely positively inexorably unchangeable”?

Apparently, not always.

Probably, sometimes it is intended to be unchangeable.

But I don’t think that the unchangeable declarations are well-defined yet, at all.

I, personally, believe that the CCC has one error in it, as many here are already aware, when Para. 499 extends Mary’s “perpetual virginity” beyond the meaning of “no sexual behavior” to her “virginal integrity,” the euphemism referring to the physical intactness of her physical genitive tract. Para. 499 seems to mean that Jesus did not experience an entry into life the same way you and I did.

This seems to perfectly squarely contradict the Magisterium’s infallible declaration at Wisdom 7:5-6, and the complementary portions of Luke stating that Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem after Jesus’ birth to sacrifice “two pigeons or turtledoves,” the poor person’s sacrifice, in Leviticus, to cleanse the mother of the blood of child-bearing.

Either Para. 499, on the one hand, or Wisdom 7:5-6 and Luke’s gospel, on the other, seem to be in error.

I vote for Para. 499 as the one in error.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Bishop Athanasius boldly and loudly opposed vthe Athanasian Heresy.
Click to expand...
Oops. So much for editing.

“Bishop Athanasius boldly and loudly opposed the ARIAN Heresy.”
 
I do not think that the actual Catechism of the Catholic Church is infallible yet it refences many infallible documents. Remember that documents produced by Ecumenical Councils are infallible.

I also believe that the Catechism does not and can not teach error as it was promulgated by the pope and he is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I do not think that the actual Catechism of the Catholic Church is infallible yet it refences many infallible documents.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you’re right because corrections had to be made to the Catechism after its original release, and infallible documents don’t need correcting.
 
It’s part of the infallible universal magesterium in as much as it repeats what the Church has always taugh doctrinally and morally. Any pastoral or disciplinary things in there are not infallible.

For example, take the paragraph on the death penalty. The doctrinal statement is that the state has the authority to use the death penalty to protect itself.

The pastoral statement is that it is no longer expedient to use the death penalty. Because it is not doctrine, so it is not infallible–but that doesn’t mean it isn’t wise pastoral counsel–in this case I would say it is.

**2267 **Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.NT
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Yeah, I think you’re right because corrections had to be made to the Catechism after its original release, and infallible documents don’t need correcting.
Click to expand...
Infallible documents sometimes are mistranslated and then the translation is corrected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top