dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aemcpa said:
Does the Church teach that being a Catholic Answers apologist bestows the charism of precise grammar?
Click to expand...
Let me ask you something else.
Is a doctrine that has been infallibly defined an infallible doctrine?
 
thistle said:
For example:

catholic.com/search/content/infallible%20teachings
Click to expand...
I think what is going on here is a sort of casual use of “infallible.”

IOW, as aemcpa says, the charism of infallibility which is bestowed upon the Church, is a negative charism. It PREVENTS the Church (or the Pope, or the Ordinary Magisterium in certain circumstances) from teaching error in matters of Faith or morals.

Therefore to say “this is an infallible teaching” is non-sensical (to be technical about it.) It would make more sense to say it is a dogma of the Church. That MEANS it’s infallible.

The problem with saying things like “this is an infallible teaching” is it leaves us to wonder what are the “fallible teachings.” Then we fall into the trap of only believing “infallible teachings” for which there is no list or source. Then using our own PRIVATE JUDGEMENT, we would decide what is fallible and what is not. As you can see, it leads down a dark path.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
I think what is going on here is a sort of casual use of “infallible.”

IOW, as aemcpa says, the charism of infallibility which is bestowed upon the Church, is a negative charism. It PREVENTS the Church (or the Pope, or the Ordinary Magisterium in certain circumstances) from teaching error in matters of Faith or morals.

Therefore to say “this is an infallible teaching” is non-sensical (to be technical about it.) It would make more sense to say it is a dogma of the Church. That MEANS it’s infallible.

The problem with saying things like “this is an infallible teaching” is it leaves us to wonder what are the “fallible teachings.” Then we fall into the trap of only believing “infallible teachings” for which there is no list or source. Then using our own PRIVATE JUDGEMENT, we would decide what is fallible and what is not. As you can see, it leads down a dark path.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. There is no trap and no dark path.
The Church has infallible and non-infallible teachings and we don’t have to scratch our heads to find a list of both. Why? Because it doesn’t matter as we are obliged to believe both infallible and non-infallible teachings.
With both types of teaching it is a sin of grave matter to reject them, albeit rejecting infallible teachings is additionally heresy.
 
aemcpa said:
You will not find any Church document referring to a doctrine as infallible.
Click to expand...
This is almost true, but not quite true. There is one (and only one, that I know of) official document that uses the specific term “infallible” in regard to a Catholic doctrine.

Pope John Paul the Great issued his Apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he confirmed that the Church has no authority to ordain women to priestly Orders, which had been taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (so this was NOT an ex Cathedra teaching of the Roman Pontiff, but an acknowledgement of what has been universally taught by the Bishops dispersed throughout the world).

Although the scope and teaching of this letter should have been pretty flippin’ obvious, there still existed some confusion (or, more likely, denial). So, Josef Card. Ratzinger (then Prefect of CCD, later Pope Benedict-16) specifically questioned the Holy Father about the exact nature of this teaching.

He then published this question and its answer, and instructed the worldwide clergy (in his lawful capacity of Prefect of CCD) in its implications:
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2).
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, this is the ONLY proper and official teaching of the Holy See that has been specifically termed “infallible” by this same Authority.
 
thistle said:
You are wrong. There is no trap and no dark path.
The Church has infallible and non-infallible teachings and we don’t have to scratch our heads to find a list of both. Why? Because it doesn’t matter as we are obliged to believe both infallible and non-infallible teachings.
With both types of teaching it is a sin of grave matter to reject them, albeit rejecting infallible teachings is additionally heresy.
Click to expand...
Too bad that’s not true. The fact of the matter is that many Catholics (even on CAF) consider fallible teachings to be optional. Therefore they only REALLY believe infallible teachings. So there is a trap, and a dark path.
 
DavidFilmer said:
This is almost true, but not quite true. There is one (and only one, that I know of) official document that uses the specific term “infallible” in regard to a Catholic doctrine.

Pope John Paul the Great issued his Apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he confirmed that the Church has no authority to ordain women to priestly Orders, which had been taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (so this was NOT an ex Cathedra teaching of the Roman Pontiff, but an acknowledgement of what has been universally taught by the Bishops dispersed throughout the world).

Although the scope and teaching of this letter should have been pretty flippin’ obvious, there still existed some confusion (or, more likely, denial). So, Josef Card. Ratzinger (then Prefect of CCD, later Pope Benedict-16) specifically questioned the Holy Father about the exact nature of this teaching.

He then published this question and its answer, and instructed the worldwide clergy (in his lawful capacity of Prefect of CCD) in its implications:

To my knowledge, this is the ONLY proper and official teaching of the Holy See that has been specifically termed “infallible” by this same Authority.
Click to expand...
Thank you for proving my point. The word “infallible” is nowhere in what you quoted. The word you bolded and underlined is “infallibly”. It’s an adverb, not an adjective; therefore it is modifying not the noun “teaching”, but the verb “set forth”. It is describing the manner in which the Church taught, therefore respecting the precise definition of the word as a charism belonging to the Church.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Too bad that’s not true. The fact of the matter is that many Catholics (even on CAF) consider fallible teachings to be optional. Therefore they only REALLY believe infallible teachings. So there is a trap, and a dark path.
Click to expand...
The FACT is that we are bound to believe both infallible and non-infallible teachings.
Catholics who think they only have to believe certain teachings or don’t even know Church teachings at all are simply badly catechised.
I don’t know why you think that is a trap or dark path. If you know anyone like that then it is your responsibility as a Catholic who is not ignorant to properly catechise them.
 
aemcpa said:
Thank you for proving my point. The word “infallible” is nowhere in what you quoted. The word you bolded and underlined is “infallibly”. It’s an adverb, not an adjective; therefore it is modifying not the noun “teaching”, but the verb “set forth”. It is describing the manner in which the Church taught, therefore respecting the precise definition of the word as a charism belonging to the Church.
Click to expand...
The normal everyday words to describe the teachings of the Church from the laity to the hierarchy is infallible or non-infallible. That cannot be denied. Nobody refers to the Church teachings in conversations as irreformable or non-irreformable. They always use the words infallible and non-infallible. The “adjective” does not have to be documented anywhere.
A teaching which has been defined infallibly is an infallible teaching.
 
thistle said:
The normal everyday words to describe the teachings of the Church from the laity to the hierarchy is infallible or non-infallible. That cannot be denied. Nobody refers to the Church teachings in conversations as irreformable or non-irreformable. They always use the words infallible and non-infallible. The “adjective” does not have to be documented anywhere.
A teaching which has been defined infallibly is an infallible teaching.
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
thistle said:
I would be willing to bet you are probably the only one in this thread that does not refer to Church teachings using the words infallible or non-infallible.
Click to expand...
Then you would be wrong, because I am with aemcpa. I never refer to church teachings as “infallible” or “non-infallible.” I simply call them church teachings or doctrines. Whether a teaching is infallible or not is subject to all sorts of qualifiers. Furthermore, it is immaterial, and you know this, because earlier in the very thread you stated all church teachings (doctrines) are to be given our assent.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Then you would be wrong, because I am with aemcpa. I never refer to church teachings as “infallible” or “non-infallible.” I simply call them church teachings or doctrines. Whether a teaching is infallible or not is subject to all sorts of qualifiers. Furthermore, it is immaterial, and you know this, because earlier in the very thread you stated all church teachings (doctrines) are to be given our assent.
Click to expand...
I would not be wrong because I used the word “probably”.

Also, you just used the word infallible referring to Church teachings. I quote you :** “whether a teaching is infallible or not…”. **You did that because it comes out automatically as it is the normal way in conversation to talk about teachings being infallible or not. Thank you for proving my point.
 
aemcpa said:
Thank you for proving my point. The word “infallible” is nowhere in what you quoted. The word you bolded and underlined is “infallibly”. It’s an adverb, not an adjective; therefore it is modifying not the noun “teaching”, but the verb “set forth”. It is describing the manner in which the Church taught, therefore respecting the precise definition of the word as a charism belonging to the Church.
Click to expand...
OK, I was a math major, not an English language major. So you are saying that a teaching which is “set forth infallibly” is not necessarily infallible? There might be teachings that have been “set forth infallibly” which are actually not infallible?

So, if a swimmer has “set a world record” in the 100 meter freestyle, he cannot necessarily be said to be a “world record holder” in the 100 meter freestyle? Can you give me a hypothetical example of a swimmer who has set such a record, but did not actually hold such a record at the time the record was set?
therefore respecting the precise definition of the word as a charism belonging to the Church.
Click to expand...
Huh??? I didn’t major in English, but I do speak English, and that phrase might consist of English words, but is hardly a coherent English thought.

And, I might also point out, the language of the Church is Latin. I had one year of Latin in high school, and I remember very little, but I do remember (painfully so) that the structure of Latin is quite different than that of English. It’s hazardous to draw inferences on Catholic doctrine based on sublitilies of an English translation.
 
DavidFilmer said:
So you are saying that a teaching which is “set forth infallibly” is not necessarily infallible?
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that to speak of the infallibility of a doctrine, or lack thereof, is nonsensical, and it’s lazy, imprecise and problematic to talk about doctrine in those terms. The entity that is infallible is the Church. Because the Church is infallible, i.e. incapable of error under certain conditions, we can be sure that those doctrines that she teaches as true are, in fact, true.
 
aemcpa said:
What I am saying is that to speak of the infallibility of a doctrine, or lack thereof, is nonsensical, and it’s lazy, imprecise and problematic to talk about doctrine in those terms. The entity that is infallible is the Church. Because the Church is infallible, i.e. incapable of error under certain conditions, we can be sure that those doctrines that she teaches as true are, in fact, true.
Click to expand...
Common sense dictates that a teaching defined infallibly is an infallible teaching.
Under your thought process a man defined as 6 feet tall is not a 6 feet tall man!
 
thistle said:
Common sense dictates that a teaching defined infallibly is an infallible teaching.
Under your thought process a man defined as 6 feet tall is not a 6 feet tall man!
Click to expand...
If this is the logic I’m dealing with, I’m not going to keep banging my head into a wall. Surely you can understand the difference between an adverb and an adjective, and you would not say, “Common sense dictates that a person admonished quietly is a quiet person.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top