V
VociMike
Guest
Seems like the obvious question to ask is, what does “predestined” mean?
- Status
D
dans0622
Guest
Hi LilyM,
I like Ott’s book. I’ve never seen any part of it that wasn’t solidly based. Anyway, this idea of “authentic magisterium” is rather obscure. I don’t know the history of the term “authenticum” and its use in this context. But, what I do know is that perhaps a better way of translating this latin word is “authoritative.” These days, “authentic” means “genuine” or “true.” But, in the past, it apparently meant something more along the lines of “authoritative.”
The canons you commented on clearly speak about the different obligations we have in response to various teachings–believe with divine and catholic faith, religious submission of intellect and will, religious submission of mind, etc. Even within teachings that we must adhere to with divine and catholic faith, there is a hierarchy. For example, the Trinity and the resurrection of the body are both objects of faith but one is of a different order than the other. I think this is what “diggerdomer” is saying and I would agree with that.
At the same time, I disagree with what he said about ecumenical councils: not everything an ecumenical council has “promulgated” is binding. Lots of what the early councils said was disciplinary. It is a lot of work trying to sort through it all.
That’s why I appreciate Ott’s book, since he did so much leg-work in compiling all these definitive statements of the Church. Is Ott inerrant? No. I’ve never seen him be flat-out wrong, though. That is why I’d like to see the source of the statement of his which was quoted at the outset of this thread…
Dan
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Dan,
Well said. I think you are spot on about the various levels of assent.
One bit though:
VC
Well said. I think you are spot on about the various levels of assent.
One bit though:
Here you seem to unintentionally indicate a disjunction between a discipline and that which is binding. In fact, disciplines are binding, no? They are, however, changeable.
VC
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello Verbum Caro,
Yes, you are certainly right. I don’t remember what, exactly, I was thinking when I was making that statement. Thanks for the correction.
Dan
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
D
DavWan
Guest
Over against your conclusion, see Pastor Aeternus:
- Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
- Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
- So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Which means even when the Pope does not teach ex cathedra, but still speaks as the Pope, what he says is binding on the faithful.
C
Camron
Guest
Um…no.
LilyM knows what she’s talking about. She explained it beautifully to you as well. You would do well to pay attention to her on these matters.
D
davidv
Guest
It also seems to me that the distinction between obedience and ascent with respect to the varying levels of certainty in Church teaching is not being properly understood or applied.Um…no.
LilyM knows what she’s talking about. She explained it beautifully to you as well. You would do well to pay attention to her on these matters.
Our obedience is required, whether we ascent to a teaching or not, no matter if the Church command is dogmatic or disciplinary. Dogma (and maybe others) also require our intellectual ascent.
D
dans0622
Guest
To get back to this question… I checked Ott (don’t have the reference but just looking up “predestination” in the index will get close to the passage in question) and looked at the context of this statement. Then, even more to the contrary, CCC # 1037 says “God predestines no one to go to hell,” citing Trent, among others.
As VociMike said, the key to understanding this apparent contradiction is the proper understanding of “predestines.” Ott says it is a “conditioned” predestination–as he says, conditioned by the sins God knows the condemned will commit. This is not a “God-doesn’t-care-what-you-do” predestination: that is the kind of predestination that the CCC says doesn’t exist. As the Eternal God, though, He must know “beforehand” all that we do and, in view of that, decide what will happen to us.
The statement of the Compendium can’t mean predestination in the “opposite” way–everybody is saved, no matter what. It points out that salvation is always available to everyone, if they want it. Nevertheless, Jesus speaks about those who “go off to eternal punishment.” So, some people will (or at least, can) refuse salvation.
That’s how I’d read it, anyway.
Dan
L
LilyM
Guest
It’s not a question of dogmatic or disciplinary in this case - both Popes and councils have said plenty of things that are absolutely neither and according even to themselves require no level of assent. If memory serves, Pope Benedict actually INVITES differing opinion in his intro to Jesus of Nazareth - so how can it possibly demand any assent at all? And Dr Ott’s interpretations of Church documents are definitely not binding in any way!
If the Pope woke up tomorrow and said ‘eggs are great for your health’ would we be bound to believe him? Course not.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Lily,
I don’t think diggerdomer or Dan would think any such thing. (would anyone?)
I think, though, what they are referring to are teaching pronouncements of the Holy Father or the College of Bishops which are neither ex cathedra infallible nor infallible due to the exercise of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, thus non-infallible pronouncements. These pronouncements are nevertheless assented to with “religious submission of will and intellect”. These could even be, as I understand it, prudential decisions.
The other class of things that have been brought up in this thread are disciplines - but they aren’t really of the same category as the above things are, since they are an exercise of the governing office and not the teaching office. They nevertheless also are binding on the faithful, just in a different way and for a different reason.
Perhaps your conversation with diggerdomer is being generated by a lack of precision in what, exactly, each of you mean by “pronouncements”. I took diggerdomer to mean those teachings that are proposed for belief. Perhaps you meant by pronouncements, anything that was said by a Pope or Bishop in any context?
As to Ott, I don’t think it is entirely helpful to point out that he himself isn’t binding on the faithful. Neither are any of us – but when we, or Ott, or another author, present or repeat the authentic Magisterial teaching (extraordinary, ordinary, or non-definitive) it is the teaching itself that would seem to require the appropriate kind of assent. The question, of course, is whether or not we or Ott are properly presenting the teaching of the Church. Ott generally gives the actual texts of Church teaching, so it often easily verified.
VC
L
LilyM
Guest
Easily verified? How can it be possible to ‘easily verify’ every church teaching of the past 2,000 years? What are the criteria? How can anyone say it’s easy when there is debate over things that should be even easier to ascertain, such as exactly how many times Papal Infallibility has been exercised - some argue that Humanae Vitae might be included, for example, when others (including, it seems, Paul VI himself) think not.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Lily, my above post was to help you two find a common ground which seems to be getting lost regarding what, exactly, you both mean by pronouncements.
In regard to Ott I simply meant that saying Ott is not binding is similar to saying you, Lily, or me VC, or Catholic Answers or This Rock magazine, or Fr. Corapi, or Fr. Hardon, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Alphonsus Ligouri are not binding.
As far as my mention of “easily verified” what I said was that generally when Ott represents that the Church said something, he usually gives a citation to the actual thing the Church said, i.e. Trent Session V, etc.
By the way, have you read Ott, especially regarding this topic on predestination? He says essential the same thing as you did in your first post. He makes careful distinctions about the kinds of predestination, about God’s permissive will, etc.
VC
D
DavWan
Guest
You seem to think that only an ex cathedra statement binds the faithful. This is not true. When the Pope does teach something (as opposed to a private statement such as one of his books), the faithful are bound to obey
from the CCC:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p3.htm#553
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm#892
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
L
LilyM
Guest
Not a bit of it - I know that many things that aren’t ex cathedra are binding on the faithful (such as disciplines). And I know that some are binding even if not absolutely expressed as such.
What I’m saying it’s that it’s NOT always possible to know with certainty which statements ARE binding and which aren’t. That’s why there has been argument over documents like Quo Primum and Humanae Vitae.
To an extent these two have been clarified by later Magisterial statements - but similar clarity does not exist in regard to every part of every Council document or Papal Bull, encyclical or other statement.
And VC, if you’re looking for common ground between me and diggerdomer you’ll be looking for a while. On another thread he’s taken a ‘preference’ from the Church for all consecrated hosts to be consumed at the Mass at which they are consecrated and practically made an infallible dogma out of it!
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I’d differ at least wrt HV. I think people object to it because they disagree with it. I don’t think they think it’s not binding, they just think it’s erroneous. Maybe not much of a difference to what you’re saying, just my view.What I’m saying it’s that it’s NOT always possible to know with certainty which statements ARE binding and which aren’t. That’s why there has been argument over documents like Quo Primum and Humanae Vitae.
No, I did not. Sorry if you got that impression. I merely pointed out what the Church preference was because it seemed people weren’t aware of it and I think the reasons behind the Church’s teaching are important. And the point is not that all hosts be consumed at Mass, the point is that we should not routinely resort to the Tabernacle to provide hosts for communion at Mass. That’s all. No dogma, just simple Church teaching.
Cheers
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
D
DavWan
Guest
No. These two documents are disputed for entirely different reasons, though the underlying similarity is that of dissent over the right of the Church to bind and loose what they do not like.Not a bit of it - I know that many things that aren’t ex cathedra are binding on the faithful (such as disciplines). And I know that some are binding even if not absolutely expressed as such.
What I’m saying it’s that it’s NOT always possible to know with certainty which statements ARE binding and which aren’t. That’s why there has been argument over documents like Quo Primum and Humanae Vitae.
Quo Primum because some who do not like the changes in the Mass are looking for reasons to deny the right of the Church to change the form of the Mass. Humanae Vitae because many hoped the Church would legitimize “The Pill.” When the Church stood fast in the opposition of all forms of contraception, the result was many rejected the right of the Church to bind and loose
One simply cannot quote the Church against the Church. For the person who dissents to say “Church document X seems to imply Y. Therefore I can oppose the Church when she says because of X we must do Z.”
Church teachings are indeed binding on the faithful. Doctrine and Dogma are always binding. Disciplines are binding from a time they are promulgated until the time the Church decides to lift them. When a Küng or a Lefebvre or a Kmiec tries to say we can do X in spite of the Magisterium, or that we must do X in spite of the Magisterium, they have no authority
On the other hand, if the Pope issues an encyclical such as Humanae Vitae or declares that the Church has no authority to ordain women, then it is something which we must adhere to. When a Pope calls the Catechism a sure norm for the faith, he is teaching formally and we cannot reject it as the Pope’s opinion.
- Status