Confused about Ex Cathedra

[real2all]

I don’t think that it is anti Catholic to ask the question. Whoever said tis is mistaken. The Church welcomes the question. What the Church expects is assent, once she answers the question.

Therefore, when the Church says that the Vicar of Christ believes that Allah, Yahweh and God are the same Divine God-head, he is making a statement of faith.

He’s not speaking about a discipline. He is saying what he believes, not in an academic way, but in a faith-filled way. When the popes have said that they believe that Allah is God, they are making a profession of faith, not to Islam, but to God.

They are saying, the God who is known by Muslims as Allah, is really our God.

When we ask the question that you raise, that’s the answer. The answer is that we cannot ignore Allah, because Allah is our God.

Do we have to worship him the way that the Muslims do? Absolutely not. Do the Muslims really understand God, only on some very fundamental levels. They still have a long way to go. Do we have to give up our understanding? Absolutely not. We have to engage in dialogue that allows us to share our understanding in a non threatening way and with a great deal of patience.

The Church is not a cult. The obedience that the Church expects of us is not the same kind of obedience that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Caesar, Pharaohs and some current leaders demand.

The obedience that we are expected to give is a loving obedience born out of a desire to love the Bride of Christ and to reach the spiritual nuptuals of which St. Catherine spoke, but with the blessing of the Holy Father who is the only voice with the authority of Christ on earth.

Yes he is the Vicar of Christ. No he is not the Savior or higher than the Savior. But to him were given the keys of the Kingdom. To him was given the authority bind and unbind. To him was given the command to lead Christ’s flock. In doing so, Christ shares with him the title “Good Shepherd”. To him Christ promises that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against him. He told Peter that he had prayed for him, individually, not for the others.

Therefore, reason tells us that the Vicar of Christ is the man whom the Father has chosen through which his son speaks and what he says concerning faith and morals is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

So when the Vicar of Christ says “I believe that Allah is God,” he is free of error, because such a statement is a public expression of faith. He did now say, “I think”.

When the Church says that she believes that the Muslim people are part of the plan in Salvation History, she’s not making a statement of discipline open for debate or a referendum. She is making a statement of faith. She is expressing what she believes about Salvation History.

Reason tells us that the Church can never make statements of faith and morals that are contrary to truth. Therefore, we obey, even if we do not understand or as Lisa said, we are asked to climb a steep hill, because this has never been said before.

There is no new dogma here. There is simply a statement that has never been made. Nothing new has been said about God or the nature of God.

No one is saying that we must accept the Muslim understanding of God. Only that we must accept that our God has been trying to communicate with the Muslims under the name of Allah, which is really an Arabic word for YHWH. The Arabic speaking Eastern Rite uses the name Allah in the liturgy all the time. So do some of the Spanish speaking Latin Catholics who lived under Arab rule in southern Spain for 800 years. They still refer to Allah instead of Dios.

Obedience is not blind. Obedience is a loving choice. We choose to obey all that comes from God and the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Im sorry, I just can’t seem to read all you have written. Way tooo long, Is there a way to condense this version of you extremly long writings. Also i did read your answer to my question and thank you, But how you can make a novel out of a yes or no question is really, really beyond me. I try for everyones sake to keep things down to a minium if you haven’t noticed. Keeps things simple Like the answer to my question.

 

[real2all]

I don’t think that it is anti Catholic to ask the question. Whoever said tis is mistaken. The Church welcomes the question. What the Church expects is assent, once she answers the question.

Therefore, when the Church says that the Vicar of Christ believes that Allah, Yahweh and God are the same Divine God-head, he is making a statement of faith.

He’s not speaking about a discipline. He is saying what he believes, not in an academic way, but in a faith-filled way. When the popes have said that they believe that Allah is God, they are making a profession of faith, not to Islam, but to God.

They are saying, the God who is known by Muslims as Allah, is really our God.

When we ask the question that you raise, that’s the answer. The answer is that we cannot ignore Allah, because Allah is our God.

Do we have to worship him the way that the Muslims do? Absolutely not. Do the Muslims really understand God, only on some very fundamental levels. They still have a long way to go. Do we have to give up our understanding? Absolutely not. We have to engage in dialogue that allows us to share our understanding in a non threatening way and with a great deal of patience.

The Church is not a cult. The obedience that the Church expects of us is not the same kind of obedience that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Caesar, Pharaohs and some current leaders demand.

The obedience that we are expected to give is a loving obedience born out of a desire to love the Bride of Christ and to reach the spiritual nuptuals of which St. Catherine spoke, but with the blessing of the Holy Father who is the only voice with the authority of Christ on earth.

Yes he is the Vicar of Christ. No he is not the Savior or higher than the Savior. But to him were given the keys of the Kingdom. To him was given the authority bind and unbind. To him was given the command to lead Christ’s flock. In doing so, Christ shares with him the title “Good Shepherd”. To him Christ promises that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against him. He told Peter that he had prayed for him, individually, not for the others.

Therefore, reason tells us that the Vicar of Christ is the man whom the Father has chosen through which his son speaks and what he says concerning faith and morals is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

So when the Vicar of Christ says “I believe that Allah is God,” he is free of error, because such a statement is a public expression of faith. He did now say, “I think”.
When the Church says that she believes that the Muslim people are part of the plan in Salvation History, she’s not making a statement of discipline open for debate or a referendum. She is making a statement of faith. She is expressing what she believes about Salvation History.

Reason tells us that the Church can never make statements of faith and morals that are contrary to truth. Therefore, we obey, even if we do not understand or as Lisa said, we are asked to climb a steep hill, because this has never been said before.

There is no new dogma here. There is simply a statement that has never been made. Nothing new has been said about God or the nature of God.

No one is saying that we must accept the Muslim understanding of God. Only that we must accept that our God has been trying to communicate with the Muslims under the name of Allah, which is really an Arabic word for YHWH. The Arabic speaking Eastern Rite uses the name Allah in the liturgy all the time. So do some of the Spanish speaking Latin Catholics who lived under Arab rule in southern Spain for 800 years. They still refer to Allah instead of Dios.

Obedience is not blind. Obedience is a loving choice. We choose to obey all that comes from God and the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So to say that the Pope is without error is a true statement? What about before he was “Pope” was he still without “errors”? Or does the “Title” give Omipetence To all that have the “Title”? I, am sorry The “Pope” is a special person, but He’s not infalible. He’s a man under all the Dogma and the really cool hat.

The “beliefs” are those of a single man, not the total beleifs of everyone here, Free will. Just because you disagree with someone It doesn’t mean “Your right and There wrong”. It means we are our own person. That can speak and think for ourselves.

It is what it is, but only you get to decided what that is. That is the gift of “Free will” and the second you take that out of any equation, You no longer have “Church” but a “cult”
I’m a Catholic because I want to be, Not because I have to be. Free will, plain and simple. Im not ignoring your statements but This is all subject to opinion, my Opinion, your opinion, everyone that reads this post, Yes or no…

 

[JReducation]

Im sorry, I just can’t seem to read all you have written. Way tooo long, Is there a way to condense this version of you extremly long writings. Also i did read your answer to my question and thank you, But how you can make a novel out of a yes or no question is really, really beyond me. I try for everyones sake to keep things down to a minium if you haven’t noticed. Keeps things simple Like the answer to my question.

That’s OK. You don’t have to read the entire post. Actually, it responded to several posters at one time. I’m glad that you found the answer to your post.

Now, if you really want long readings come to one of my formation classes in the novitiate. LOL I used to make the novices take notes, but I grew to feel sorry for them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[real2all]

That’s OK. You don’t have to read the entire post. Actually, it responded to several posters at one time. I’m glad that you found the answer to your post.

Now, if you really want long readings come to one of my formation classes in the novitiate. LOL I used to make the novices take notes, but I grew to feel sorry for them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for the invitation. Really, but to see only what one person wants you to see is not really my idea of a education… Perhaps I might learn something from many people of this forum, because I’m really not perfect, nor claim to be, that would be sacrilegious. wouldn’t you agree, yes or no? So please feel free to feel sorry for me, won’t hurt me one bit…Thank you…

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for the invitation. Really, but to see only what one person wants you to see is not really my idea of a education… Perhaps I might learn something from many people of this forum, because I’m really not perfect, nor claim to be, that would be sacrilegious. wouldn’t you agree, yes or no? So please feel free to feel sorry for me, won’t hurt me one bit…Thank you…

We can always learn from many sources. The most important thing is to always remember that everything that we learn about faith or morals has to be checked against what the Church teaches.

There is some legitimacy to see what one person wants to show you too. Don’t ever rule that out. I’m reminded of my days as a novice. Although there are many ways of observing the Gospel, our founder wanted us to see his way and follow that. Once you learned his way, you had to choose to follow or leave. You could not remain in the community and follow the Gospel along another path.

Sometimes, for the sake of unity, one does have to follow one teacher, even in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

So to say that the Pope is without error is a true statement? What about before he was “Pope” was he still without “errors”? .

Neither.

The pope, and the magisterium as a whole, are protected from teaching anything which would be a detriment to the faith when acting collegially, or when the pope “speaks” ex-cathedra. (In this context, “speaks” generally should be read as writes.)

(Ex cathedra literally means “from the chair”… more figuratively, it means the official actions by the person with the title in the course of holding that title.)

No pope has ensconced heresy in the formal teachings. The holy spirit protects the church from such, even tho’ a couple popes themselves apparently held heresies themselves, per their private correspondence. No plenary council of the church has taught heresy, tho several have made suboptimal disciplinary decisions… (1st plenary Baltimore comes to mind there).

 

[Tradycja]

For a correct understanding of “ex cathedra” and Papal Infallibility read
the text of the First Vatican Council:


http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6

For clarification on different levels of Catholic teaching please see these documents:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei,” 4, L’Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English, 15 July, 1998, ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

And you want to look at AD TUENDAM FIDEM Pope John Paul II

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2adtu.htm

 

[Tradycja]

Let me add also that:

Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching - a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism. For example Limbo of Infants was a common teaching in most catechisms around the whole world for many years but in the 20th century many theologians turned against this teaching (I think unwisely…)

The CCC, simply speaking, is not part of the solemn magisterial teaching of the Church. It is only infallible, where it reiterates defined doctrine.

Even the Catechism of Trent is not per se infallible, but only 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.

As long as one upholds both the freedom of the will and the necessity of grace, either emphasis is acceptable. Therefore, to answer the question “Is the CCC part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church?” No, not without qualification. If the CCC 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.)

The Roman Catechism however does enjoy a higher authority than any other catechism.
But if you read all those documents on my above post all this will be clarified for you.

 

[1way]

Let me add also that:

Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching - a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism. For example Limbo of Infants was a common teaching in most catechisms around the whole world for many years but in the 20th century many theologians turned against this teaching (I think unwisely…)

The CCC, simply speaking, is not part of the solemn magisterial teaching of the Church. It is only infallible, where it reiterates defined doctrine.

Even the Catechism of Trent is not per se infallible, but only 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.

As long as one upholds both the freedom of the will and the necessity of grace, either emphasis is acceptable. Therefore, to answer the question “Is the CCC part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church?” No, not without qualification. If the CCC 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.)

The Roman Catechism however does enjoy a higher authority than any other catechism.
But if you read all those documents on my above post all this will be clarified for you.

Thank you!
I feel like Im one more step toward Magisterium Laborinthium Clarificationem …

 

[brigid12]

Yes he is the Vicar of Christ. No he is not the Savior or higher than the Savior. But to him were given the keys of the Kingdom. To him was given the authority bind and unbind. To him was given the command to lead Christ’s flock. In doing so, Christ shares with him the title “Good Shepherd”. To him Christ promises that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against him. He told Peter that he had prayed for him, individually, not for the others.

Therefore, reason tells us that the Vicar of Christ is the man whom the Father has chosen through which his son speaks and what he says concerning faith and morals is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

So when the Vicar of Christ says “I believe that Allah is God,” he is free of error, because such a statement is a public expression of faith. He did now say, “I think”.

When the Church says that she believes that the Muslim people are part of the plan in Salvation History, she’s not making a statement of discipline open for debate or a referendum. She is making a statement of faith. She is expressing what she believes about Salvation History.

Reason tells us that the Church can never make statements of faith and morals that are contrary to truth. Therefore, we obey, even if we do not understand or as Lisa said, we are asked to climb a steep hill, because this has never been said before.

There is no new dogma here. There is simply a statement that has never been made. Nothing new has been said about God or the nature of God.

No one is saying that we must accept the Muslim understanding of God. Only that we must accept that our God has been trying to communicate with the Muslims under the name of Allah, which is really an Arabic word for YHWH. The Arabic speaking Eastern Rite uses the name Allah in the liturgy all the time. So do some of the Spanish speaking Latin Catholics who lived under Arab rule in southern Spain for 800 years. They still refer to Allah instead of Dios.

Obedience is not blind. Obedience is a loving choice. We choose to obey all that comes from God and the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF