dogma

[guanophore]

That is completely irrelevant.

It is absolutely relevant. You are claiming that something that has clearly never been a part of the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith was part of it, and that is not the case. The concept of Limbo was a theological speculation that emerged centuries after the close of public revelation.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the Apostles of their successors as represented in the Early Fathers ever mentioned anything like “Baptism by heretics is valid.” In fact, EACH AND EVERY EARLY FATHER who spoke on the subject (before Pope Stephen settled the matter) spoke against it. St. Cyprian would not even use the term “baptism” in this context (he referred to those “made wet by heretics” - I think that’s funny).

At least we are in agreement on this point! However, this example only strengthens my point. We don’t find anything mentioned in the early Church about Limbo. It was a much later development - not part of the doctrine of the faith.

 The Church is led by the Holy Spirit, and not by the Early Church Fathers.

Again I will agree with you on this point, however I would note that the HS did lead the Early Church Fathers. Whenenver their writings are consistent with the once for all divine deposit of faith, they witness to the infallible teaching of the Church. We can look at these threads of infallible teaching through their works.

The Church does not need the Fathers to define doctrine, and the Church can define doctrine that opposes each and every Early Church Father, and She has done so.

 The idea of Limbo was *not even* opposed by the Fathers.

I did not claim it was.

There is nothing wrong with pious theological speculations that are not opposed to the Teachings of the Church.

 If the Church can define as **Dogma** something that was opposed by every prior ECF, She could certainly define as **doctrine **the idea of limbo, which was not even mentioned by the EFFs.

No, she could not. Doctrine, by definition, comes from the Apostles.

Dogma is an article of faith revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church presents as necessary to be believed. Dogma must derive it’s meaning from doctrine, and is considered a " truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding." The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

I suspect you are talking about the Marian dogmas when you are referring to those that are not mentioned in the Fathers?

The faithful are required to accept with the divine and Catholic faith all which the Church presents either as solemn decision or as general teaching. Yet not all teachings are dogma. The faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmata.

So, are you saying that Limbo has been presented in this way by the Church? If so, why is it not defined as such in the current catechism?

If a Catholic were to willfully deny any particular dogma they know is taught dogmatically by the Church, they would no longer be a part of the Church, since heresy immediately separates one from the Church. Are you claiming that a person who did not espouse Limbo was considered to have fallen into heresy?

Maybe the Church could also define (as doctrine) the idea that artificial birth control was not permissible.

No. The gift of infallibility prevents the Church from defining as doctrine that which contradicts what has already been revealed as True by the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

But when Saints, and Doctors, and fourteen Popes espouse a teaching, it DOES make it a doctrine.

No, David, it does not. Many more people than this fell into the Arian Heresy during the early centuries. It is estimated that 80% of the bishops and theologians and even the Pope. Truth is not defined by the number of people who espouse it, nor error by the same.

You have invented your own private interpretation and definition of how a doctrine is defined in the Catholic faith, and it is erroneous.

The Catholic Church has no such definition, and uses the terms “doctrine” and “dogma” interchangeably.

I will agree that they are often used this way, as both of them are considered to be infallible in source. However, if you check your Ott (don’t you have this on your shelf?) you will see it is clear that the concept of dogma has two elements: Immediate divine revelation from Scripture or Tradition, and, a proposition of the Church, which not only announces the dogma but also declares it binding for the faith. This may occur through an ex-cathedra decision by a Pope, or by an Ecumenical Council.[Can you provide an official Church document that meets these criteria about Limbo?

A number of individuals espousing an idea, despite how esteemed they may be, does not make them accurate.

Modern Catholic theologians have adopted the term “dogma” to refer to a teaching that has been promulgated in an infallible manner (as opposed to “doctrine,” which has not). I am using the terms in this context.

Yes, and I do see your point. However, the distinction is noted here, in that a dogma must be “promulgated”, since it did not come down to us from the Apostles. A good example is the Trinity, a concept that is rooted in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but is a word not found in any of them. It was made a dogma of the Church centuries after the death of the last Apostle (and thus, the close of the public revelation). Another dogma would be the canon of Scripture, also not in existence at the time of the Apostles (the NT I mean) and although mentioned in some writings, was hotly disputed for centuries, with many well meaning theologians coming down on the side not, in the end, consistent with the Church (Jerome and the Deuterocanon, for example).
DavidFilmer;10853922:

The Faithful are not expected to make any such distinction.

If you mean that we are to accept all that we are taught with meekness and receptivity then I agree with you. However, this distinction does exist.

If a Catholic lived six centuries ago and disputed the idea of Limbo, he would be a heretic.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

I think it is not unlike the status of one’s political security at the time of the Reformation and before. The Church considered those who became Protestants to be traitors to the realm, and that it was not a sin to put them to death. That does not make this practice a doctrine of the faith, though.

 

[benjohnson]

The Church considered those who became Protestants to be traitors to the realm, and that it was not a sin to put them to death. That does not make this practice a doctrine of the faith, though.

We have to learn to distinguish between dogma, doctrine, and ordinary teaching:

A Lutheran pastor will tell you that “We don’t know what happens to un-baptised babies who die, but we trust in the Lord”

However when directly confronted by a grieving parent who lost their child in the womb, the pastor is likely to find comforting Gospel and leave the parent to draw the conclusions that God will take care of even the smallest of children.

This is what “Limbo” is - it’s a comforting “ordinary teaching” that may not be perfectly correct or even knowable. It’s neither dogma or doctrine, but it does have value to those that need the comfort of the Gospel and may need a way of explanation.

 

[DavidFilmer]

It is absolutely relevant. You are claiming that something that has clearly never been a part of the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith was part of it, and that is not the case. The concept of Limbo was a theological speculation that emerged centuries after the close of public revelation.

You don’t understand what the Deposit of Faith is. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and She alone defines what constitutes the Deposit of Faith. The Church has dealt with issues that were not even conceived of in the Apostolic Era. By your definition, Humanae Vitae is not Church doctrine, because there was no such thing as artificial birth control in the Apostolic Era. If you *really *want to make that point, please open your own thread to invite your own doom. It might not be Dogma (but it might be dogma), but it is certainly doctrine, and each and every Catholic is expected to accept it. No Catholic may use a condom and justify it because Humanae Vitae has not (yet) been recognized as dogma.

A doctrine is something that was taught by the Apostles.

No it’s not. A doctrine is something that is taught by the Catholic Church. Again, you are confused by the belief that the “deposit of Faith” was fully revealed in the Apostolic Era.

No, she could not. Doctrine, by definition, comes from the Apostles.

Wrong again.

Dogma is an article of faith revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church presents as necessary to be believed.

Wrong again. The Church does not necessitate any particular belief. We must assent to Dogma, but are not required to personally believe it.

I suspect you are talking about the Marian dogmas when you are referring to those that are not mentioned in the Fathers?

You suspect wrong. I was talking about artificial birth control, as I mentioned.

The faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmata.

NONSENSE! That’s heresy! Each and every Catholic is expected to accept (assent to) each and every doctrine of the Church. There IS NO SUCH THING as an official “list” of dogmatic teachings, and there never will be, and there never could be, so no Catholic could know what doctrines s/he must accept and which s/he is free to reject. No Catholic may freely reject any teaching of the Magisterium. To the guy in the pew, it makes no difference whatsoever if a teaching is dogma or doctrine.

So, are you saying that Limbo has been presented in this way by the Church? If so, why is it not defined as such in the current catechism?

I’m saying it was doctrine. If you lived six centuries ago, and disputed the teaching of Limbo, you would have been a heretic, plain and simple. You could have been tried, convicted, and executed for this heresy. It would have fallen to the Church to render judgement on the heretical nature of your belief, and you would have been judged guilty of heresy and handed over to the State for sentencing and probable execution.

If that ain’t doctrine, then I don’t know what is. If the Church would brand you as a heretic, then you must have done SOMETHING against doctrine.

If a Catholic were to willfully deny any particular dogma they know is taught dogmatically by the Church, they would no longer be a part of the Church, since heresy immediately separates one from the Church. Are you claiming that a person who did not espouse Limbo was considered to have fallen into heresy?

Yes.

The gift of infallibility prevents the Church from defining as doctrine that which contradicts what has already been revealed as True by the Holy Spirit.

Wrong again. The gift of infallibility prevents the Church from defining false dogma (using the distinction I have already presented). This is, perhaps, why the **doctrine **of Limbo never made its way into dogma.

 

[thistle]

Limbo for Infants has always only been a theological hypothesis.
It has never been an infallible teaching nor has it been a non-infallible teaching.
Catholics have not in the past nor do they now have to believe in Limbo for Infants. We are free to believe or not believe.

By the way, heresy applies only to contradicting/disbelieving infallible teachings. It does not apply to non-infallible teachings.

 

[aemcpa]

Limbo for Infants has always only been a theological hypothesis.
It has never been an infallible teaching nor has it been a non-infallible teaching.
Catholics have not in the past nor do they now have to believe in Limbo for Infants. We are free to believe or not believe.

By the way, heresy applies only to contradicting/disbelieving infallible teachings. It does not apply to non-infallible teachings.

Teachings can’t be infallible or non-infallible. Infallibility is a charism of persons, not a property of teachings.

 

[thistle]

Teachings can’t be infallible or non-infallible. Infallibility is a charism of persons, not a property of teachings.

That is not correct. Teachings are infallible and non-infallible.

 

[aemcpa]

That is not correct. Teachings are infallible and non-infallible.

Infallibility is the charism by which the Church is protected against teaching as true that which is false.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

guanophore:

So, are you saying that Limbo has been presented in this way by the Church? If so, why is it not defined as such in the current catechism?

Both the current catechism and the catechism of the Council of Trent specifically mention the Bosom of Abraham (Limbus Patrum) in the articles on the Apostles Creed’s “and he descended unto the dead.” Both catechism’s mention that this is not the Hell of the Damned, nor is it Heaven, nor is it just a euphemism for dying, as the Creed has already stated that Jesus was “Crucified under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried.” Both Catechisms mention that it was this “Bosom of Abraham” taught by Jesus, that was the hell Jesus descended to, after His death. Therefore Limbus Patrum is in the APOSTLES CREED, and both catechisms, under a different name.

The theology of Limbus Patrum is another matter. Neither catechism delves into that. So what we do have is what was Church teaching on the matter in all ages. Limbo definitely exists (or existed) as a matter of Church doctrine going back to the Apostles.

It is important to recognize that NOT all Church teachings (doctrines) are contained in the catechisms. All of the important ones are. Ones that go into the fringe areas of doctrine, that may still by in flux, like Limbo, are usually passed over in silence.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• Theologians distinguish three classes of revealed truths: truths formally and explicitly revealed; truths revealed formally, but only implicitly; and truths only virtually revealed.
• Now, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church.
• The divisions of dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.

So we can see that arguing over Doctrine vs. Dogma is an oversimplification. Catholics only need to know what the Doctrines of the Church are, and they are explained in the catechism. It’s a bad idea to classify doctrines as somehow less than dogmas because then we fall into that category of Only-believe-infallible-dogmas type Catholic. That is both unreal and an error.

 

[thistle]

Infallibility is the charism by which the Church is protected against teaching as true that which is false.

That’s what makes a teaching infallible.
There are infallible and non-infallible teachings.

 

[aemcpa]

That’s what makes a teaching infallible.
There are infallible and non-infallible teachings.

That doesn’t make the teaching “infallible”. The Church that defines such a teaching is infallible, and therefore we can have certainty that the teaching is true. We can know that whatever the Church proposes to us as doctrine is true because the Church is infallible. Those doctrines that are taught by the Church under her charism of infallibility are said to be “irreformable”. To use the word “infallible” to describe a doctrine makes no sense, especially when you say there are “non-infallible teachings”. How can a teaching, which is not a sentient being, be capable of error?

 

[thistle]

That doesn’t make the teaching “infallible”. The Church that defines such a teaching is infallible, and therefore we can have certainty that the teaching is true. We can know that whatever the Church proposes to us as doctrine is true because the Church is infallible. Those doctrines that are taught by the Church under her charism of infallibility are said to be “irreformable”. To use the word “infallible” to describe a doctrine makes no sense, especially when you say there are “non-infallible teachings”. How can a teaching, which is not a sentient being, be capable of error?

Infallible teachings are those which are beyond all doubt.
Non-infallible teachings are those which are beyond all reasonable doubt.

Let us get this clear. Are you publicly proclaiming that the Church has no infallible teachings?

 

[aemcpa]

Infallible teachings are those which are beyond all doubt.
Non-infallible teachings are those which are beyond all reasonable doubt.

Let us get this clear. Are you publicly proclaiming that the Church has no infallible teachings?

I am saying that the adjective “infallible” is not properly applied to teachings, because infallibility is a charism possessed by persons.

 

[thistle]

I am saying that the adjective “infallible” is not properly applied to teachings, because infallibility is a charism possessed by persons.

It is properly applied to teachings and used by Bishops and priests all the time.
Even this very website Catholic Answers has MANY articles about “infallible” teachings.
I would think you are probably the only Catholic who does not think the word infallible should be used to describe teachings.

 

[aemcpa]

It is properly applied to teachings and used by Bishops and priests all the time.
Even this very website Catholic Answers has MANY articles about “infallible” teachings.
I would think you are probably the only Catholic who does not think the word infallible should be used to describe teachings.

The Catechism disagrees. Paragraphs 888-892. It applies to the Church, not to the doctrines she infallibly proposes.

 

[thistle]

The Catechism disagrees. Paragraphs 888-892. It applies to the Church, not to the doctrines she infallibly proposes.

So you are saying Catholic Answers is wrong, that all the bishops and priests are wrong, and all the posters who use this term for dogma are wrong but you alone are correct?

 

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/caricaturegkc1.jpg?w=450

A chapter from David Fagerberg’s “The Size of Chesterton’s Catholicism that takes up Chesterton’s defense of dogma and doctrine. Most regard obedience to Church dogma as a negative (is it because dogmatic is derived from dogma?) but Chesterton shows dogma makes us more free and is a way of thinking. Doctrines are complex.

Chesterton argues in the way a key is complex; they are vital in the sense of life-producing and life-protecting; they show a map to the mind which maintains by conviction what is otherwise maintained only by custom; and he says that doctrinal complexity, while single-minded, does not suffer the narrow-mindedness which cleaves revelation from reason and science. Fagerberg liberally uses quotes from Chesterton and brings together material from several different sources.

Some dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays. . What a man can believe depends upon his philosophy, not upon the clock or the century. If a man believes in unalterable natural law, he cannot believe in any miracle in any age. If a man believes in a will behind law, he can believe in any miracle in any age. Suppose, for the sake of argument, we are concerned with a case of thaumaturgy [working of miracles or magic feats] healing.

A materialist of the twelfth century could not believe it any more than a materialist of the twentieth century. But a Christian Scientist of the twentieth century can believe it as much as a Christian of the twelfth century. It is simply a matter of a man’s theory of things. Therefore in dealing with any historical answer, the point is not whether it was given in our time, but whether it was given in answer to our question. And the more I thought about when and how Christianity had come into the world, the more I felt that it had actually come to answer this question.
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

In Christ,

dj

 

[aemcpa]

So you are saying Catholic Answers is wrong, that all the bishops and priests are wrong, and all the posters who use this term for dogma are wrong but you alone are correct?

Catholic Answers apologists are not immune from grammatical errors, and neither are bishops or priests. I didn’t say I alone am correct; the Catechism and all other Church documents referring to infallibility are correct. You will not find any Church document referring to a doctrine as infallible.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

So you are saying Catholic Answers is wrong, that all the bishops and priests are wrong, and all the posters who use this term for dogma are wrong but you alone are correct?

Maybe it would help if you post a quote(s) from CA where they use the term “infallible doctrine.”

 

[thistle]

Maybe it would help if you post a quote(s) from CA where they use the term “infallible doctrine.”

For example:

catholic.com/search/content/infallible%20teachings