Difficult passage in Catechism

[Dovekin]

The first line “the holy people of God” - it’s flattering, but the people of God are not that holy and most of them do not have any prophetic office.

You are welcome to believe that, but it is not what the Church teaches. We receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism and Confirmation in a permanent way or indelible mark. We receive the Holy Spirit through Holy Communion. “The holy people of God” is not an accidental phrase, but at the core of the teaching in Lumen Gentium. And all the people have a place in the prophetic office of Christ. That is a core meaning of Confirmation. LG 35 affirms it:

Christ, the great Prophet, who proclaimed the Kingdom of His Father both by the testimony of His life and the power of His words, continually fulfills His prophetic office until the complete manifestation of glory. He does this not only through the hierarchy who teach in His name and with His authority, but also through the laity whom He made His witnesses and to whom He gave understanding of the faith ( sensu fidei ) and an attractiveness in speech so that the power of the Gospel might shine forth in their daily social and family life. They conduct themselves as children of the promise, and thus strong in faith and in hope they make the most of the present, and with patience await the glory that is to come. Let them not, then, hide this hope in the depths of their hearts, but even in the program of their secular life let them express it by a continual conversion and by wrestling "against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness.
Lumen Gentium 35

 

[Bill_B_NY]

That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God. Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints, penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.

I’d interpret this as:

If you are obedient to the Spirit of God, then you must accept the Word of God, and through that, if you persevere, you will adhere unwaveringly to the faith and apply it to life.

But that’s actually different from what it says. My version makes sense. That translation does not.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

He does this … through the laity whom He made His witnesses and to whom He gave understanding of the faith … they conduct themselves as children of the promise, and thus strong in faith and in hope they make the most of the present, and with patience await the glory that is to come.

I find that to be factually incorrect. “The laity” does not conduct themselves as children of the promise for most of the time, among the vast majority. They do not make the most of the present. They are not strong in faith.
I find all of that to be incorrect.

 

[Beryllos]

Good thoughts Beryllos.
Perhaps one way I could look at it: “If you retain the faith (are one of the faithful) and embrace all that the Church teaches (even if unknown) and try to correct your errors as they become known … then, God will take care of the rest”.

Hmm, that’s a lot of ifs, and focusing on the individual. Let me try to broaden it.

The passage is about a kind of infallibility of the whole Church. I might fail, but the Church will prevail.

I might fail today, or this year, but other imperfect faithful, with God’s help, may ultimately save me.

And I, as imperfect as I am, may save them, or contribute to their salvation.

We’re all in this together, with Jesus and the saints, the Church.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I might fail today, or this year, but other imperfect faithful, with God’s help, may ultimately save me.

Two things. I do think it requires an “If”. Otherwise, this is “once saved always saved” - or “Baptised, then guaranteed heaven”. I put “if” in there because it’s not guaranteed. We can and must have confidence in God - but we have to keep working at it.
Some give up on God and go their own way - others outright reject Him after they started. So, I objected to this:
the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith

That’s where I added some “Ifs” - which are not part of the document.
Otherwise, it’s saying that we’re not going to fail, even in the short term. “Unwaveringly” - we’re like saints right from the beginning?
That cannot be right.

 

[Beryllos]

You’re right, our salvation is not a sure thing.

I’m not sure, but maybe you are reading too much into this Catechism passage. Start by taking it at face value, just what it says, without adding anything. Then see if it can, by some stretch, be reconciled with your concerns.

I have to break away from this for other pressing matters, but I’ll be sure to check in later or tomorrow.

 

[fhansen]

How do you interpret it?

It’s the goal, the ideal, and it happens, not necessarily overnight. And as it does we appreciate the faith all the more. It’s a sort of conviction about the truths presented by the Church.

 

[Beryllos]

I see connection to CCC 320-314, particularly the passages titled Providence and secondary causes (we are given the opportunity cooperate in the accomplishment of God’s plan) and Providence and the scandal of evil (God knows how to derive good from our freedom and our mistakes).

 

[Bill_B_NY]

It’s the goal, the ideal, and it happens, not necessarily overnight. And as it does we appreciate the faith all the more. It’s a sort of conviction about the truths presented by the Church.

I found this to be very insightful, thanks.
I considered two other things in that passage - both very “Vatican II” things in that sense:

1. Yes, to think of it as the ideal is better. It’s not the reality. But why propose something that is not real, not true? Why actually say that all the faithful will unwaveringly give universal consent? It’s wildly inaccurate and may never actually happen. But this is the spirit of the Positive Theology – trying to create some encouragement and a more optimistic view of things. To me, this was overdone, but in God’s plan we can consider that it was necessary perhaps in the 1960s or perhaps the Church’s theology had grown too narrow and negative, so they were trying to bring a lighter tone. Now - 60 years later, that approach may be outdated and we need a something with more realisim. Could be?
2. Vatican II was emphasizing the democratic approach and trying to break down a hierarchical view of things. So now, the People of God are believed to be part of the infallible exercise - with the claim that they all adhere to the Faith. That also may have been necessary - promoting the laity from a role where it was not considered very important, to now sharing with the clergy and hierarchy. Again, that may have required a certain exaggeration - and perhaps another area for a reform in some point in the future, possibly? I don’t know.

 

[fhansen]

Well, I wasn’t meaning to focus strictly on the “ideal” aspect. I meant that more in terms of a goal, in fact. It’s not exaggeration; one can know in an increasingly stronger way that the Church is, simply, correct in her teachings. I had left the CC altogether as a youth, practicing nothing for years but later Protestantism, then, later yet to my own surprise, began to study my way back into the Church, and finding myself agreeing with her on so many teachings. Still working on some of it but a whole new appreciation for what she stands for can develop.

 

[Dovekin]

These things are not new doctrine from Vatican II, but part of the perennial teaching of the Church.

The Wikipedia article on Sensus Fidelium is a good place to start for an understanding of it.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

The Wikipedia article on Sensus Fidelium is a good place to start for an understanding of it.

Thank you that was helpful.

“Universal consent” means - “consensus” (as does “whole body of the faithful”)
“Consensus means - “majority”? No, that would be too easy.
No, “consensus” means, “we really don’t know but it is intuitive”.
Of course, nobody is going to try to figure out exactly what the laity think about the matter.
It’s more like “we will define this …” (wait a while, look at how much opposition comes in - if it’s small enough then …) because the faithful give universal consent”.
However, it has a long history - from the early church.
The sensus fidelium would be as when the faithful clamor for the canonization of a saint, or when St. Ambrose was called upon to be a bishop by the faithful calling for him. In our day, it could be situations where the laity make their voice heard.
I was shocked to see St. John Newman arguing for women priests – that proved to be the wrong concept.
The abuses of the sensus fidelium approach were noted there. People calling for a majority vote would be incorrect.
It’s not a stand-alone function for infallibility. It actually lags behind the other two - Papal infalliability ex cathedra does not require magesterial support or sensus fidelium but usually seeks it.

 

[Dovekin]

It actually lags behind the other two - Papal infalliability ex cathedra does not require magesterial support or sensus fidelium but usually seeks it.

I am not sure that is quite right. “Papal infallibility is based on the sensus fidelium, which is why the faithful will consent afterward” is closer to it but not quite there.

Consensus is usually pretty fuzzy to define, though it is used often. Does Robert’s Rules define it.

And, no St John Newman did not argue for the ordination of women. He said something about the sensus fidelium that NCReporter applied to he ordination of women. Newman wrote On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine in 1859, if you really want to get into the discussion of the Church’s faith.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Consensus is usually pretty fuzzy to define, though it is used often. Does Robert’s Rules define it.

I maintain that the catechism passage is very fuzzy still. “Consensus” as the correct term comes from outside of the document. The statement factually incorrect and requires a re-write to make sense of it. We can try to use a hermeneutic of continuity, as is always the challenge. But for the damage it could do in misinterpretation I would think someone would fix it. But some are suggesting now that the misinterpretation was intended - and therefore is not a misinterpretation.

And, no St John Newman did not argue for the ordination of women.

I misread that - moving too quickly. Thank you for the correction.